Russell, On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Russell Wallace <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Russell, >> >> "What we have here is a failure to communicate." >> > > I think so... > > Not really. If every one of the ~10^10 neurons that have axons and >> dendrites connected to 10% of the other neurons (probably close to the >> worst possible real case), we have then "only" complicated things by ~7 >> orders of magnitude (adjusting downward for present NN complexities). >> > > You're missing the central point. > > The computational requirement for one iteration may be linear in the > number of variables, which with future hardware should end up being > tractable even for something as complex as the human brain, as you say. > > But the size of the search space is *exponential* in the number of > variables. > No, it is quadratic. n things have n(n-1)/2 potential interactions. > If you have ten thousand variables (equivalent to some simple invertebrate > brains), you're looking at computational effort, not of 10^4 operations, > but exp(10^4). That's the problem. > Please explain how it is exponential rather than quadratic. Steve ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
