So because this person didn't specifically correct you about a specific term in a specific email when his entire reply was to tell you to read his book, you're taking that as him agreeing with everything in your email and are using that as proof that your manner of speaking isn't hard for people to understand, even though that same person admitted that most of the time he can't understand what you're saying?
Small nitpick:
There were other replies too.
Anyway, the entirety of his response :
(1) Included a brief discussion on manifolds.
(2) A direction to His book, which I now cite in
thought curvature.
I already covered the parsing problem in the
previous reply; although the French speaking Bengio had trouble parsing one of my initial questions, I later rephrased that question,
which he answered briefly albeit quite sensibly/helpfully .
Much of that rephrasing was labelled as "gibberish" (See
here or
here) by another
poster here, while the same sequence was detected as non gibberish by somebody actually in the field (namely Bengio Yoshua), as a
precise, relevant helpful answer was given.
People on this forum then joined in on the
bandwagon that my work, particularly the region the poster above referred to, was gibberish, such is the nature of the bandwagon.
Footnote:
I removed some labels ("causal neural manifold", "causal neural perturbation curvature" etc as seen in this
old version) from the
current thought curvature version because they were causing complaints, and I found also that there were better ways to organize the paper without using these novel labels, so that the paper would still carry the same meaning.
I had introduced the novel labels, as labels to describe novel applications of lie superalgebra in relation to deep learning architecture.
As those labels caused problems, and because they could be removed while maintaining the same meaning, I eventually found those labels to be irrelevant. (
Although as time passses, machine learning papers introduce novel labels)
Notably though, the
same crucial content that was acknowledged and
answered by Bengio (with actual machine learning experience) as seen
here, (which is in the
current thought curvature version) was labelled as gibberish by another
poster here. (See
here or
here)
