Sorry, that was Boston Dynamics. My bad. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kenneth Lloyd > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 5:15 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is programming a mathematical formalism > > Russell, > > You are absolutely right. BioDynamic's Big Dog learned to > walk over uneven ground using evolutionary neural networks. > So are ANN's math? Well, yes (my > answer) and no. Actually, it depends on your concept of math > - which I sense is rather rigidly defined within this > discussion. ANN's can solve non-analytic equations, which > are beyond differential equations. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww > > Ken > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russell Standish > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 3:50 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity > > Coffee Group > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is programming a mathematical formalism > > > > Actually a robot would probably do it the same way we do - > trial and > > error with some kind of feedback loop. Solving differential > equations > > tends not to work too well in controlling robots. > > > > But is the feedback loop used by the robot maths? The computer code > > is, the formal structure of the loop is, a model of > something using it > > is. The execution of the code, however, is not maths, AFAICS. > > > > Cheers > > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 11:56:20AM -0700, Russ Abbott wrote: > > > Is catching/throwing a ball math? A robot would do these > > things using math. > > > But we don't, and we don't prove the result. We just > check out the > > > result against reality. So why call it math? Or if you > > wouldn't call > > > it math, how does it differ from writing a program, which also > > > produces a result/product/effect. We may not treat that > result as a > > > mathematical object. As with catching/throwing a ball, we > > often just > > > check it out against the reality of its use. > > > > > > -- Russ > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 11:48 AM, glen e. p. ropella > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > > > > > Thus spake Robert Holmes circa 10/01/2008 11:29 AM: > > > > > Is programming a mathematical formalism? No. I know > > that when I'm > > > > cranking > > > > > out Python scripts I am not doing any math. > > > > > > > > Just to be clear, programming is the _act_ of > > constructing a program. > > > > As an act, it is not a formalism. However, the program > > produced is > > > > a construct within a particular formalism. To boot, that > > formalism > > > > is a mathematical formalism. > > > > > > > > So, when you are programming, you are doing mathematics, > > even if you > > > > don't realize it. The same is true of the child > counting on her > > > > fingers. She's doing mathematics even though she may not > > realize it. > > > > The same is true of the plumbing contractor when she > > _figures_ out > > > > how to lay pipe in a house. She's doing math, even > > though she may > > > > not realize it. > > > > > > > > Programming is (a form of) mathematics. > > > > > > > > But I don't want to give the impression that _everything_ > > is math. > > > > When we construct an actual/physical object, the object is not > > > > (necessarily) a construct within a particular formalism. > > So, when > > > > we build something, say, a chair, we may or may not be > > doing math. > > > > If we did all the figuring prior to the construction, then the > > > > construction phase isn't mathematics. If, however, we use the > > > > various pieces to measure the other pieces and figure > things out > > > > during the construction process, then we're doing math. > > > > > > > > So, actions (and sensing) are not math. Of course, > Guenther will > > > > probably pop back in and say that _if_ the entire universe is a > > > > mathematical formalism and all things in the universe are > > constructs > > > > in that formalism, then all actions and sensing are math, > > as well. > > > > But aside from that pathological ontological conclusion [grin], > > > > there are non-math things. > > > > > > > > I would also posit that general thought (not calculation or > > > > "figuring") may be non-mathematical. But I can't defend > > that position very well. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at > > > > cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, > > unsubscribe, maps at > > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > > http://www.friam.org > > > > -- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > > Mathematics > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------- > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays > 9a-11:30 at cafe > > at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at > > http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
