sisial <sisial at email.msn.com> wrote:
> "Harry Erwin" <herwin at gmu.edu> wrote in message
> news:1ees4qj.4v4leq1nbquf4N%herwin at gmu.edu...>> > You're missing my point. Symbols are signs. They belong to a countable
> > set. Wind-tunnel models can vary continuously (or discontinuously). That
> > matters--there are some applications (for example in hydraulic analysis)
> > where symbolic modeling encounters an intractable problem, but analog
> > modeling works fine.
>> Keeping in mind that I am still very new to all this, I am not sure I
> understand the distinction you are trying to make between "symbolic
> modeling" and "analog modeling". Isn't the comparison of "symbolic" to
> "analog" something along the line of a comparison of metrics to precision?
Perhaps I would be clearer if I used the term 'formal model' rather than
'symbolic model'.
>> > Why do I care? Disambiguating an acoustic scene
> > based on multisensor data is very difficult because of all the ghosts
> > that have to be eliminated _sequentially_. Bats do it in real time. How?
>> This also may sound simplistic, but why sequentially? Can't the bat focus
> on specific acoustic patterns? They do possess the potential for handling
> pattern recognition and pattern definition. And, they also possess the
> potential for focused attention.
The matching problem is NP-complete even assuming no noise.
--
Harry Erwin, PhD, <mailto:herwin at gmu.edu>,Computational Neuroscientist
(modeling bat behavior), Senior SW Analyst and Security Engineer, and
Adjunct Professor of Computer Science, GMU. Looking--CV available at:
<http://mason.gmu.edu/~herwin/CV.htm>
