kenpc at banet.net
Tue May 18 18:42:20 EST 1999
i stand on what i've posted (which you, obviously, didn't read
what i described is, in fact, an encapsulation of the real-"time"
"calculation" that embues the Universe with Physical Existence...
right down to the Physical Existence of every individual,
so-called, "atom", all their actions and interactions, all
Physical "force", Life, and all of the Choice derived in Life,
etc... everything within Physical Reality... again, all in
real-"time"... it all reduces to the continuous, one-way flow of
energy from order to disorder that is what's described by 2nd
Thermo (wdb2t)... it's all one big stateless continuity... one
big "traveling salesman problem" that's continuously solved in
real-"time"... which means thare exist no, so-called
K. P. Collins
Patrick Juola wrote:
> In article <3740B614.BCA68119 at banet.net>, ken collins <kenpc at banet.net> wrote:
> >and, btw, this sort of system is easily, and vividly, simulated
> >via an approach that makes use of red, green, blue (RGB) color
> >mixing to encode "ionic conductances" (in a non-analog machine,
> >the color representations are still "state"-bound, but, if one
> >wants to, the calculation can be extended to any degree of
> >accuracy by just using arbitrarily-long numbers to interpolate
> >between the 16M color states of a PC, and having a scalable graph
> >window to display the interpolation).
> >this system of stateless calculation breaks all, so-called,
> >"NP-complete" "barriers"... is limited only by global i/o channel
> >capacities... whole databases can be taken in, and their main
> >significance, calculated immediately (in linear "time").
> I think you're misusing the terminology -- and concept -- of
> "NP-completeness" in your rush to make an incorrect point.
> First of all, neural networks, whether artificial or natural, are
> of course highly parallel systems, which makes it difficult to
> import technical analysis tools such as NP-completeness without
> substantial modification. "Obviously," 2^N Turing machines will
> solve a problem faster than N will, but this doesn't have anything
> to do with non-determinism per se.
> But furthermore, the claim that NN's are somehow "stateless" and
> hence only I/O bound is incorrect; most interesting NN's incorporate
> some sort of state/memory. Furthermore, the reduction of NNs to
> Turing machines, in both directions, is well-known. Neural networks,
> along with RAMs, Game-of-Life, and so forth, are simply yet another
> Church-Turing computation device. You can't claim that continuity
> provides some sort of mystic power, as NNs aren't continuous
> computers; ionic flow is limited, eventually, to the flow of single,
> quantized, ions.
More information about the Neur-sci