IDMclean

August 2010. Hit and run post.

Kriminal, your argument stands in direct contraindication of the social decree that the greatest number of people shall get the opportunity to participate in the system. What you are suggesting implies the selection of an extreme minority with higher priority than the average applicant. Such a proposition suggests discrimination between applicants and the preferential exclusion of a major class of people. Are you genuinely suggesting that people are of different capacity and capability? What of and divergent thinking? What of multiple intelligences?

I did not imply that it was contradicted. With the demonstration of monopoles, we know that at some point Dirac's corrections come into play which means Maxwell's equations are approximate without the corrections. Fun part is it implies quantization of the magnetic "charge".

Real-space observation of emergent magnetic monopoles and associated Dirac strings in artificial kagome spin ice Scientists capture first direct images of theoretically predicted magnetic monopoles Ha! Take that Maxwell!

If this isn't nothing, sue me. See what you get. Axiom, A: The set of axioms, A, is the empty set. [math]A = \emptyset[/math] Lemma 0: This system is both para-consistent and non-structural. Theorem 1: The number of axioms of this system is zero. Theorem 2: There is only one function in this system, [math]f_A : \emptyset \to A [/math]. Theorem 3: This system is discrete and finite. Corollary 4: This system has a topological dimension of zero. Theorem 5: This system has at most one n-ary operator.

Achievement unlocked: Underachiever Unlock no achievements for seven or more consecutive days.

I grok the 1/x. I had never really heard about x/x tending towards every value though oddly enough in trying to come up with a system of arithmetic in which 0/0 was valid, my conclusion had been that 0/0 was the set of numbers such that it was effectively an arbitrarily valued variable. If you have them, I'd like more resources on the different ways to deal with and conceptualize divide by zero problems. I have a sneaking suspicion that it could be solved in a para-consistent logic.

Seems similar to the Banach-Tarski Paradox.

Thank you Boerseun, very much on topic post and with keen insight. In discussing the notion of free will and it's place in intelligence, we're examining that limitation of classical computing: the inability to make choices. While "A computer can only act, that is, pretend to be, intelligent within the limits of its coding." is true for a decision problem solving classical computer, it is not necessarily true for a free-will endowed quantum computer. I think this is the big oversight of Turing. He held that intelligence was in a sense deterministic and classical computing reflects that. Variati

This rests upon the hypothesis that consciousness lies within the brain which is a hypothesis that I explicitly reject. The neural network does not have the data persistence to allow awareness of temporal differences beyond a couple minutes at best. The glial cells, neuroglia, of the brain make up 90% of it's tissue, and prior to the late 1990s early 2000s, they have been regarded as structural without cognitive function. We know this to be false at current and are making up for lost time. However, none of this address the syntax, semantics, semiotics, structure, or logical composition of simu

A point of clarification: by artificial intelligence, I mean intelligence that hypothetically can be simulated in sillico. At this point it is nether established nor refuted that artificial intelligence can be described purely through theoretical computing and physics. This thread concerns the possibility that it may not be effectively possible to simulate intelligence on a classical computing machine. The implication being that it maybe necessary to introduce quantum computing to simulate intelligence. On that basis, I would make a similar argument as Feynman did regarding the simulation of

Variations in fine-structure constant suggest laws of physics not the same everywhere Evidence for spatial variation of the fine structure constant My only interest in posting these updates is the answer to the question: can we mathematically and deductively reproduce the results?

I placed this here because I thought it might yield an insight to vectorizing the counting function. If the fine structure varies by direction, the number of nonfiguratives should also vary by direction, no? We could construct a mathematical space representing the space of the nontrivial figuratives and see if we can match results. A Hilbert space seems like a good place to start to me though I don't have the mathematical tools to carry out the work myself.

Thank you CraigD for filling in some of the gaps. I did qualify my statement with "tractable" though perhaps I should have qualified it further with "effectively tractable". A note of the quantum computation with entanglement even that paper admits that it is a subclass of quantum algorithms which wouldn't need entanglement. Fairly soon in, it states that algorithms such as Shor's Factoring algorithm would still require entanglement to take advantage of the exponential quantum speed-up. As soon as I have a moment to sit down and produce some more research, I'll elaborate on my criterion for

If entanglement implies free will and entanglement is necessary for quantum computation, quantum computation is necessary for artificial intelligence. At this time, is it generally accepted among quantum computer scientist that entanglement is a necessary property of a universal quantum computer? Can we accept the conclusions of Jonathan Barrett and Nicolas Gisin? If we can accept the above proposition, we may have an answer as to why AI has yet to be achieved. It would be impossible to implement a tractable AI on a classical Turing Machine. How much free will is needed to demonstrate no