On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:28:52PM -0700, Simon Forman wrote:
There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated right now that
seems to me to be very promising for this sort of stuff.
Is it intrinsically massively parallel? If it isn't, it's probably
not going to go places.
Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org writes:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:28:52PM -0700, Simon Forman wrote:
There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated right now that
seems to me to be very promising for this sort of stuff.
Is it intrinsically massively parallel? If it isn't, it's
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
Regarding the language under-the-hood: If we want to automate software
development, we would gain a great deal of efficiency and robustness by
focusing on languages whose programs are easy to evaluate, and that will
(a) be meaningful/executable by
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:17 AM, Carl Gundel ca...@psychesystems.com wrote:
I’m not sure why you think I’m attributing special reverence to
computing. Break all the rules, please. ;-)
To say you're touching the hem generally implies you're also on your
knees and bowing your head.
I would say that 'life' as we know, and understand, it has 'chosen'
robustness and redundancy instead of efficiency. It doesn't matter how
efficient you *were* if one glitch kills you. I used quotes are because I
am anthromorphizing evolution. It seems to me that some of the ideas here
are
On Sep 5, 2013 11:18 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
But it's easy to forget that life had millions or billions of years to
get where it's at, and that it has burned through materials, that it fails
to recognize the awesomeness of many of the really cool 'programs' it has
created
Ah. Perhaps a more direct reference to the elephant would have worked
better. :)
Yeah, I'll grant the metaphor that we have a lot of different people
focused on different parts of the computational elephant.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Carl Gundel ca...@psychesystems.com wrote:
By touching
By touching the hem in this sense I meant that we’ve got a blindfold on and
we’re trying to guess what the elephant looks like by touching any one part of
it.
-Carl
From: fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] On Behalf Of David
Barbour
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
I agree we can gain some inspirations from life. Genetic programming,
neural networks, the development of robust systems in terms of reactive
cycles, focus on adaptive rather than abstractive computation.
But it's easy to forget that life had
On Sep 5, 2013 11:57 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone done research on improving programs? I know of some where
you try to find bugs in programs. What about actually detecting and
replacing or
Even if the different domains are different it should still be possible to
generalize the basic framework and strategy used.
I imagine layers of models each constrained by the upper metamodel and a
fitness function feeding a generator to create the next layer down until
you reach the bottom
So I guess I would apply a goedel machine by looking at http request and
response or sql*net request and response. Is there a goedel machine that
work on 2 inputs and 2 outputs, or do you just label them, reducing the
number of inputs and outputs?
On Sep 5, 2013 12:22 PM, John Carlson
What is an impact map model? Is it something like a use case?
On Sep 5, 2013 12:33 PM, John Nilsson j...@milsson.nu wrote:
Even if the different domains are different it should still be possible to
generalize the basic framework and strategy used.
I imagine layers of models each constrained
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Chris Warburton
chriswa...@googlemail.comwrote:
there can often be a semantic cost in trying to assign meaning
to arbitrary combinations of tokens. This can complicate the runtime
(eg. using different stacks for
All very good points, Chris.
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Chris Warburton
chriswa...@googlemail.comwrote:
David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com writes:
I agree we can gain some inspirations from life. Genetic programming,
neural networks, the development of robust systems in terms of
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Chris Warburton
chriswa...@googlemail.comwrote:
to prevent type errors like true 5 + it uses a different stack for each
type
I think these errors might not be essential to prevent. But we might want
to support some redundant structure, i.e. something like
On 09/05/2013 at 4:05 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:28:52PM -0700, Simon Forman wrote:
There is a (the?) universal logical notation being elucidated
right now that seems to me to be very promising for this sort of
stuff.
Is it intrinsically massively
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Chris Warburton
chriswa...@googlemail.comwrote:
there can often be a semantic cost in trying to assign meaning
to arbitrary combinations of tokens. This can complicate the runtime
(eg. using different stacks for different datatypes) and require
arbitrary/ad-hoc
John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com writes:
On Sep 5, 2013 11:57 AM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:41 AM, John Carlson yottz...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone done research on improving programs? I know of some where
you try to find bugs in programs. What
19 matches
Mail list logo
