er
lar
way"
blem in programming.
Not exactly. Learning to program involves learning to recognise all the rul es you need to apply to get the result you want, and then - of course - wor king out how you tell them to the machine, and how you get it to check that every last one has been satisfied.
If you have rules you didn't think to tell the computer about, you haven't mastered programming.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
OK, getting a bit into philosophy perhaps, my first encounter with that 'neuron' idea in programming is from I think it was in the eighties in a German magazine called MC?? where a prof had little cars (software emulation) controlled by only 2 or 3 ? (don't remember) of those 'neurons'.
Those cars showed amazing human like behavior, depending how you 'wired' the neurons those would circle around each other or avoid each other etc..
It got my interest (robotics been building a little car myself)) back then, and did some experimenting.
Later I did write some neural net code to 'learn' stuff, but then was too busy with work etc to pay much attention. For object recognition (video my field) it was at that time not really good enough. A lot has been done since the eighties and many papers have been published, quite amazing results now achieved with e=neural nets in object recognition, amazing special hardware exist too. That field is still very much alive.
mm I dunno, could it perhaps be _you_ missed something??
Yes there are those special people, I am one of those, did electronics at 9 years old ;-), mama had to get a waver from the library so I could get the books. There is also somebody who can learn a new language in 12 hours or something,,,,
And recite PI to I dunno how many decimals. Maybe with enough training and the will to do it anybody can. The will to do it is an important factor.
I was reading about this kid last week (in Dutch):
WE sHoUlD KeeP hIm iN Europe
I don't think there is even a way to calculate the number of states they have. What we need is a method like the invention of the state machine - a simpler way to design with components that already exist.
Anything powerful is dangerous.
Math is NOT a substructure, it's a set of universal principles that don't depend on any physical objects (indeed, do not depend on any properties of the universe).
Some properties of the universe, however, do match math principles.
Bad time to answer for me, ju\st watched part of an alien horror movie, but () as we give more decision making to AI (artificial neural nets) AI will at some point 'invent' (make a substructure it calls 'universal principles') _math_.
As to the reality of that substructure, 'string theory' is a bit like ..well name your religious fanatics. singularities (substructure did a divide by zero as it had no clue what it was applying itself too), etc etc..
Sometimes bear with me, I very much see myself as the ant creeping up the wall, its worldview with its fewer neurons then (well should anyways) is enough for it to maintain the species... keep it alive,
Math as a method.. sure, but per definition in physics it is always wrong as we do not know unlimited depth. it then becomes a dream world of / for the math user... Exactly like religions provide a fake reality that is however embraced by large masses as a method to live and continue the species.
? Maybe , but cannot put it better,
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.