Jump to content
Science Forums

Diamond


ughaibu

Recommended Posts

Never heard of it but it looks interesting! Seems to be trying to apply quantum indeterminancy to mathematical logic by using recursive methods. I stumbled upon a few sites that talk about the theory in some detail:

 

http://www.thinkartlab.com/pkl/nlp-work/Deconstruction&DiamondStrategies.html

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:gpPq5iVSmw8J:dialog.net:85/homepage/incose2002/vl01b01.htm+%22NS+Hellerstein%22+Diamond&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

 

If you read it, post a review here!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sounds a bit like fuzzy logic with a soul.:xx:
Actually, it sounds completely different than Fuzzy Logic: Diamond seems to do tree pruning and optimization via recursion--there are *lots* of complications in optimization of multivariate systems though!

 

Fuzzy logic is all about applying probabilities to outcomes and computing combinations of them, which is all based on a priori data. Fuzzy actually isn't very fuzzy: it very accurately optimizes your washing machine and keeps your freezer from consuming too much energy! All hail Lofti Zadeh!

 

Probably,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is not connected Buff ... Recursion rules, probability drools.
Then stop contradicting yerself Professor T! I like both recursion and probability. Good goal seeking algorithms (see the link above) *really* have to throw random numbers into the mix in order to avoid "local minimums/maximums" that fool you into thinking you've got the answer. Randomness and probability are the serendipity generators of mathematics! :eek:

 

Oh, lets frob that seed here,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then stop contradicting yerself Professor T! ..Randomness and probability are the serendipity generators of mathematics! :eek:

 

Oh, lets frob that seed here,

Buffy

 

Without self-contradiction, there is no zen.

Just because we find probability useful, does not mean it is accurate. Before Copernicus, the method of epi-cycles adequately described/predicted most heavenly body motion. All probability is based on one primary assumption, & I maintain that assumption is false. [Assume equal likely-hood, i.e. fairness]

I like what Trimtab has to say on the subject:

Probability is not a reliable anticipatory tool; it is stronger than "possibility" but crude in comparison to "navigation" and "astronomy." If probability were reliable, there would not be a stock market or a horse race.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dots sure puttin' the cart before the horse! Probability is evil because its not accurate? Yow! You sound like one of my math professors! Its no wonder that statistics has always had to have its own department...

 

Probability is an essential and *useful* tool to those of us who do math in the real world (oooooh! evil applied mathematics! boo! hiss! :eek: ). Nope, ya can't *always* beat the market, but show me a purely analytical tool that can! What it *can* do--which is where the cart-horse issue comes in--is *explain* and *model* whats going on.

 

Its always been interesting to me that some of the most important breakthroughs in mathematics like Calculus came from a tremendous amount of empirical data being gathered and formulas starting with *approximations*--which is what Diamond seems to be doing.

 

When doing goal-seeking, you could pick any random direction to go in (ooooh! non-determinism! evil! :) ), but at least some of your attempts should be influenced by probability in order to find optimums faster (goes into algorithms that learn based on patterns and recognizing similar patterns is based on....probability! yow! :) ).

 

Keepin' an open mind,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sound like one of my math professors! ...

Ouch!:( :)

Probability is an essential and *useful* tool to those of us who do math in the real world (oooooh! evil applied mathematics! boo! hiss! :) ). Nope, ya can't *always* beat the market, but show me a purely analytical tool that can! What it *can* do--which is where the cart-horse issue comes in--is *explain* and *model* whats going on.

Keepin' an open mind,

Buffy

 

Somewhere here (I can't find it yet) I gave some links to the guys from Stanford who more-or-less got the Chaos Theory ball rolling. They now work on stock market data & as I understand it they do better than the standard issue probability calculations. Recurring theme...?

I hope you don't think I eschew applied mathematics; I certainly didn't mean to imply that. :eek:

 

PS Found it:

http://www.cs.brown.edu/research/ai/dynamics/tutorial/Documents/CrackingWallStreet.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch!:) :)
Jus' ribbin' you a bit to keep you in line! :eek:
Somewhere here (I can't find it yet) I gave some links to the guys from Stanford who more-or-less got the Chaos Theory ball rolling. They now work on stock market data & as I understand it they do better than the standard issue probability calculations.
Yah, BUT Chaos theory *heavily* uses probability! Its *advanced* probability in my book! Has random numbers at its very core, and uses probability to direct its algorithms. "Standard probability" is not incorporating the algorithms, so the synthesis of the two gets more accurate results.

 

Prune, prune, prune go the leaf nodes,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jus' ribbin' you a bit to keep you in line! :eek2:

Yah, BUT Chaos theory *heavily* uses probability! Its *advanced* probability in my book! Has random numbers at its very core, and uses probability to direct its algorithms. "Standard probability" is not incorporating the algorithms, so the synthesis of the two gets more accurate results.

 

Prune, prune, prune go the leaf nodes,

Buffy

 

I suspected as much; moreover I expected as much; however I also suggested as much; nonetheless you contested not much.

 

I think the very definition of 'random' is at the core of my contention. Before Chaos theory it meant one thing, but after chaos theory things previously termed 'random', i.e. no reliably identifiable pattern, no longer fit that definition. Now, rather than prune chaos theory back to some probabolistic node, lets prune back the definition of random... to the stump.

 

Just a few more thoughts. Not all recursive chaotic algorithms require any probability or seeding at all other than an input of initial conditions. I have done some work with 1-dimensional cellular automata that demonstrated this assertion to my satisfaction. (I may even have recently archived my Basic code if you care to see;) )

 

ughaibu, sorry if we hijacked the thread off topic; thirty lashes with a wet spaghetti monster.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the very definition of 'random' is at the core of my contention. Before Chaos theory it meant one thing, but after chaos theory things previously termed 'random'...no longer fit that definition.
Its always been the same for me, but I have a lurking thread I'm about to unleash in a completely different realm that deals with this "perceptions of randomness." But you'll have to wait for that....
Not all recursive chaotic algorithms require any probability or seeding at all other than an input of initial conditions. ...1-dimensional cellular automata that demonstrated this assertion to my satisfaction.
Oh no question that you *can* its just that I've seen research that indicates that you have to do many more iterations (at least O(log n) if not O(n)) if you do *not* introduce a random branching in order to find optimal solutions! I'll try to see if I can find something on it, but you may find it first!
ughaibu, sorry if we hijacked the thread off topic; thirty lashes...
Ditto, but actually I think we're more on topic than it would seem: these posts all have key implications for the Diamond approach from what I can tell...

 

Depth-first,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...