I have a Math minor from University but in 32 years of computer work, I haven't used more than grade 12 Math in any computer project yet. I have produced thousands of programs for at least 100 clients including creating a language/database that sold over 30,000 copies. I have done system programming and lots of assembly language as well as major applications in PowerBuilder and Visual FoxPro. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but if Math wasn't required at all in all my career, I fail to see how it is necessary for the creation on an AGI or any other major programming effort.
I created a bond comparison program for a major wealth investment firm that used a pretty fancy formula at it's core but I just typed it in. I didn't have to create it, prove it or even understand exactly why it was any good. I think Math is fine but computer programs from my perspective are a totally different creature. How much Math do you think is used by the brains of most human beings? By the way, I did complete a 3rd year computer engineering course in 2000 where the professor tried to show how you could make and prove programs correct with a totally Math system. Good thing he is a professor and doesn't have to work in the real world. A CPU executes instructions including assignment, conditionals and simple looping. How can a language not have these things and still be useful. Functional languages seem to refute this statement but they still must be implemented in procedural internal code. Functional languages like SQL and report generators are already implemented in procedural languages (so it doesn't have to be either/or) and more could be as needed. Is useful and practical not better than "revolutionary" and limited? Would you define total introspection and many built-in tools to create efficient programs using programs to be "same old things rehashed"? Is having a very fast built-in database with triggers and stored procedures just laisser-faire? Most human invention isn't brand new concepts or ideas but different and useful combinations of things already known IMO. I made a point about the efficiency of creating high level languages in the language of the AGI. I argue that this causes a performance hit of up to 100x or more depending on the complexity of the code. (less complex means a bigger performance hit) With the tools I have put into my language, higher level functional or other languages can easily be made and then compiled into the native language for huge cycle savings. This can't be said for all the languages I have looked at so far. If you care to comment on any of my points directly, I would more than happy to respond. -- David Clark ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Rose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <agi@v2.listbox.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 10:26 PM Subject: RE: [agi] My proposal for an AGI agenda > Enhancements to existing computer languages or new computer languages that > could possibly grease the wheels for AGI development would be aligning the > language more closely to mathematics. Many of the computer languages are > the same old things rehashed in different though new and evolutionarily > better ways but nothing I've seen too revolutionary. Same old looping > structures, classes, OOP, etc.. nothing new. But if someone could add some > handy math structures into the language - group/ring theory, category > theory, advanced graph structures have this stuff built right in not > utilized through add-ons or libraries or coded in house. These math > structures should be standardized and made part of the language now. > Believe me, non mathematician programmers would learn these tools rapidly > and use them in new and exciting ways. Now many are going in all sorts of > wild goose chase directions due to lack of standard mathematical guidance > built in. Growing a crop of potential AGI developers who don't need no math > PHd's would happen if this came about. Granted good C++ coders can > accomplish just about "anything" with the language, there is a complexity > overhead tradeoff that needs to be maintained in doing so (in exchange for > speed usually in C++). But as many here understand, having good patterns, > algorithms and particularly math systems and structures, speed issues can be > bridged and many times eliminated by designing and solving things through > math verses CPU cycles. Now naturally AGI systems can and do have > handcrafted or other incorporated languages built in, these too many times > suffer from the same limitations. Though I imagine certain AGI's have some > pretty advanced languages cooked up inside. And perhaps these are the ones > that grapple more efficiently with machine and network resource > limitations.... > > John ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
