On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Mike Tintner <tint...@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote:
> Dave:You can't solve the problems with your approach either > > This is based on knowledge of what examples? Zero? > It is based on the fact that you have refused to show how you deal with uncertainty. You haven't even conceded that there is uncertainty. I know for a fact that your method cannot solve the uncertainty, because it doesn't even consider that there might be any uncertainty. It is not a solution to anything. It is a mere suggestion of a way to compare objects. It isn't even a way to match them! So, when you're done comparing, your method only says it is different by <this> much. Well, what the hell does that do for you? Nothing at all. So, clearly my statement that your approach doesn't solve anything is well based. Yet, your claim that my approach is wrong is very poorly based. Your main disagreement is my simplification of the problem. That doesn't mean anything. I can go back and forth between the simple version and the more complex version whenever I want to after I've gained understanding through experiments on the simpler version. There is nothing wrong with the approach I am taking. It is completely necessary to study the nature of the problems and the principles that can solve the problems. > I have given you one instance of s.o. [a technologist not a philosopher > like me] who is if only in broad principle, trying to proceed in > a non-encoding, analog-comparison direction. There must be others who are > however crudely trying and considering what can be broadly classified as > analog approaches. How much do you know, or have you even thought about such > approaches? [Of course, computing doesn't have to be either/or > analog-digital but can be both] > the approaches are equivalent. I don't even say that my approach is digital. If I find a reason to use an "analog" approach, I'll use it. But so far, I can't find any reason to do so. BTW, you would be wiser to realize that analog can likely be well represented by digital encoding for the problems we are discussing. I see absolutely no reason to think analog is better than digital for any of these problems. You simply have a bias against my approach. And bias is not sufficient reason to disagree with me. > My point 6) BTW is irrefutable, completely irrefutable, and puts a finger > bang on why geometry obviously cannot cope with real objects, ( although I > can and must, do a much more extensive job of exposition). > That is ridiculous. First of all, a plastic bag can easily be represented geometrically as a mesh with length constraints and connectivity constraints. Of course it doesn't represent every possible transformation of the bag. It doesn't even make sense to store such a representation. In fact, its not possible. Your claim that geometry can't represent a plastic bag is downright dumb and trivially refutable. You could easily use your own ideas then to "transform" the mesh for matching, although I still claim this is not the right way to always match objects. In fact, I would dare say it is often the wrong way to match objects because of the processing and time cost. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
