Yes Jed, and the more advanced the technology generally, the narrow the
range of success becomes.
This failure sharing idea might work ok if we were designing plows or
wagons, but even something as basic as the internal combustion engine is
too complex and has too narrow a range of success for col
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/04/apr-17-2017-lenr-info-shortissimo.html
peter
--
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Good eye, Nigel.
... almost calls for an abbott and costello shtick ;-)
Nigel Dyer wrote:
At this point I perhaps ouught to point out my own article in Nature
Genetics. If you have access to the full article you will find it
says that a Nature Genetics paper a year earlier is substantially
in fact in my school (ESIEE), multilevel neuronal network were fashion
(Yann Lecun was a reference as ancient from the school).
what was limiting was compute power (we were thinking about specialized
hardware mimicking life)...
Experts systems were more applicable, like natural language processing
At this point I perhaps ouught to point out my own article in Nature
Genetics. If you have access to the full article you will find it says
that a Nature Genetics paper a year earlier is substantially flawed
because they had based their conclusions on what is in fact an artefact
in the data.
"The Impostor Cell Line That Set Back Breast Cancer Research
It’s but one example of a major problem in cancer science."
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/04/the_impostor_cell_line_that_set_back_breast_cancer_research.html
A reader comment:
"If people knew what research
John Berry wrote:
> It might have limited application, but mostly, I don't see it, too often
> success and failure is just an inch apart.
>
Yes! That is an important point. Unfortunately, failure is a more likely
outcome. There are countless way to make an experiment fail, but only a
narrow ran
7 matches
Mail list logo