From: James Rogers (jamesr@best.com)
Date: Wed Mar 28 2001 - 15:27:48 MST
At 11:22 AM 3/28/2001 +0200, Eugene Leitl wrote:
> > don't think everyone is using it the same way.) Writing heuristics to
> > replace sections of the table is a sub-optimal solution (provably so) and
> > would have serious consequences if implemented on a broad scale.
>
>Actually, you can prove that that table is anything but random, unless
>compressed optimally.
Actually, you can prove that an optimally compressed table will give the
most correct answers for all practical purposes. On average, heuristics
produce inferior results (on a couple different axes).
I am currently working on a paper that I hope to have completed and on the
web prior to Extro-5 that addresses many of the issues being talked about
here and proposes several new concepts that I think the people on this list
will find fascinating. No hand-waving, just fairly rigorous mathematical
formulations with lots of references. In particular, it addresses the fact
virtually every AI implementation attempted so far is provably defective in
one or more respects; apparently many AI researchers don't go dumpster
diving through mathematics archives like I do. I have intentionally
avoided really getting into this topic in email (even though I know a lot
more than I am stating) because the topic is way too long to do justice to
here and would necessarily be less rigorous than it should be.
Cheers,
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:06:45 MST