Jeff, Steward, I think what is actually missing is a formal description of the algorithm that allows non software programmers to understand and analyze it in full detail. Fergal and I were even thinking of an electronic wiring schematic to try and capture the full detail of CLA in a concrete formal way. I fear that without a central formal model the theoretical research, the practical implementation and the documentation will slowly drift apart without anyone noticing. Having a software-development-independent formal description of the algorithm will also help to avoid the mix-up of code-parts that are there because the CLA algorithm says so, parts that are there because no better engineering solution has been found yet for a specific system behavior and even parts that might be there because of the specific expressiveness of a programming language. - The “language” of the formal model should allow people from different (maybe even VERY different) areas to gain full insight into the fundamental algorithm. - The formal model should also allow to think, discuss and communicate concepts at different scales of resolution (from the birds-eye perspective down to the synapse level)
I am well aware that this is not an easy thing to do, but I think it is indispensable for the development of any theoretic research field to have its own formal notation framework. Francisco On 15.01.2014, at 07:33, Stewart Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote: > Very good point Jeff, I suspect this material is ready for peer review (in > the idealistic sense of the phrase peer review). I'll admit I've lost faith > in the peer review process of today. For many reasons, too many to go into at > the moment. Though despite my tangible dislike for journals which needs to be > disrupted off the face of the earth, publishing with them most likely brings > more academics onboard. > > The main driver for this paper is to get everyone on the same page. I'd > prefer seeing a comprehensive (white) paper, with a series of smaller papers > focusing on smaller areas being published in the journals. All the detail is > in the comprehensive. The smaller papers are to move academia along using a > language and publication process they are familiar with. I suspect new names > should be made to describe newly discovered phenomenon, with as emphasis on > describing the right 'altitude' one needs to approach this problem. This > conditions the academics to start adjusting the mindset to a certain level. > Eventually causing a resonance which hopefully can be conducted into and > through NuPIC. So we as a community had better be sure NuPIC is in shape such > that the resonance won't shatter it. > > Jeff Hawkins <[email protected]> wrote: >> When you say "canonical paper" are you thinking a peer reviewed paper >> or an >> updated white paper? Is it more important to be comprehensive (white >> paper) >> or published in peer reviewed journals? Or are you thinking something >> else? >> Jeff > > Kind regards > Stewart > > -- > Please excuse my typos and brevity > > _______________________________________________ > nupic mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org _______________________________________________ nupic mailing list [email protected] http://lists.numenta.org/mailman/listinfo/nupic_lists.numenta.org
