Michael, John, Ed,
MB: can can can can could. As
the most simple systems are Turing complete, I'd say what a system *can* do is
not relevant, only what it actually does :-)
Regards,
Michael Brunnbauer
Agreed. There are lots of systems that take longer than
the universe's remaining life. There are zillions of problems that can take
hundreds of years of processor time. Those are only mildly interesting to
remember when the need exists. But the algorithms that are consistently useful
and have optimal performance for most REAL applications are the ones that are
useful AND correct.
"Nuclear fusion as an energy generation
technology will be here in ten years" I kept hearing in the sixties.
I still hear it today, but not as confidently spoken now.
Sincerely,
Rich
Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Brunnbauer
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 10:49 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Architecture of Intelligent Systems - Flexible
Modular Framework
Hello John,
Thomas Johnston wrote:
> And recent connectionist research has apparently
proven that ANNs can
> carry out deductive theorem-proving. Another claim
is that ANNs have
> been proven to be able to implement Turing machines
which, if true, should settle the matter.
You wrote:
> They worked independently, but they challenged one
another with
> examples of what each of their methods could
compute: "Here's what my
> system can do. Can yours do the same?" As a
result, they agreed that
> the three systems (and many other variations) are
equivalent in
> computational power.
[...]
> Note the message format, p. 14 of
http://www.jfsowa.com /pubs/arch.pdf .
> It allows arbitrary languages, which can be as
complex as English, or
> as simple as a single bit. Most messages are
simple. Also not the
> character strong for 'speech act'. Most speech
acts are also simple,
> such as tell (update), ask (query), or do
(execute). But they can
> also lead to complex transactions.
[...]
> I had not seen that article before I submitted
mine. If I had, I
> would have pointed out that the architectures in
Figs 1, 2, 3, and 4
> of that article (and many, many more) could have
been implemented very
> quickly by putting together a collection of FMF
agents.
[...]
> In fact, the various VivoMind applications use
different architectures
> which are assembled by putting together previously
written modules (or
> adding new ones). In fact, the modules can
reorganize themselves and
> create (AKA 'learn' or 'discover') new ways of
interacting. That's
> the point of http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/paradigm.pdf
[...]
> By the way, the FMF is, in effect, a distributed
operating system.
> We use modules written in Java, Prolog, C, and other
languages.
> The software is very easy to port from Linux, to
Windows, to Apple OS.
> And it can communicate with agents in other FMF
systems anywhere on
> the WWW -- there may be a delay, but the message
passing is
> independent of the location.
can can can can could. As the most simple systems are
Turing complete, I'd say what a system *can* do is not relevant, only what it
actually does :-)
Regards,
Michael Brunnbauer
--
++ Michael Brunnbauer
++ netEstate GmbH
++ Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++ 81379 München
++ Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++ Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++ E-Mail brunni@xxxxxxxxxxxx
++ http://www.netestate.de/
++
++ Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B
München) USt-IdNr.
++ DE221033342
++ Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++ Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel