Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

[Reality Check]

Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model

I did think that "A probable experiment" word salad was just some bits of rather incoherent text about some math + physics stuck together but now it looks totally incoherent

A probable experiment: A Transverse Field Ising Spin (Super)–Hamiltonian Quantum Computation
Considering the Bessel aligned second-order linear damping equation: �� ̃ = (z + 1/λ)1/2[C1I√5/2(α(z + 1/λ)) + C2 I −√5/2(α(z + 1/λ))]eµz [12], constrained in the Montroll potential uM(ξ) [12], via Zλ, given that any SO group is reducible to SU typically SU(2) [16]; within the aforesaid constraint, the Hamiltonian operator: − ∑ Γ �� a σ�� �� − ∑ �� �� a σ�� �� − ∑ w ��,�� ab σ�� �� σ�� �� [13] is reasonably applicable in the quantum temporal difference horizon: π(s1) ← argmaxa Q(s1, a) [14] as a Super-Hamiltonian [15] in contrast.
Consequently, some odd operation of form {H ± F, H ± F}1 = ±2QH, {H + F, H − F}1 = {H ± F, QH }1 = {QH, QH}1 = 0 [15] subsuming − ∑ Γ �� a σ�� �� − ∑ �� �� a σ�� �� − ∑ w ��,�� ab σ�� �� σ�� �� [13] is theoretically absorbable in [14].

(a copy and paste from the PDF so not well formatted)
One obvious point of physics ignorance is the inclusion of SO symmetry groups. These appear in specific solutions of QFT. The major example is the Standard Model of particle physics. An undergraduate textbook example of a solution without SO is the hydrogen atom which has spherical symmetry. Ising spin systems should not have any of these symmetry groups.

16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics.

 

[Reality Check]

An irrelevant not Ising spin reference in an Ising spin section

16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics.

He writes a section on " Transverse Field Ising Spin (Super)–Hamiltonian Quantum Computation" so it would be reasonable that the references are to literature on Ising spin but then we have
Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale is not about Ising spin at all! Or any Ising spin computation. Or any "(Super)–Hamiltonian".
It is almost as if the paper was selected form a Google search for supersymmetry and maybe brain.

16 October 2017: An irrelevant not Ising spin reference in an Ising spin section.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I did think that "A probable experiment" word salad was just some bits of rather incoherent text about some math + physics stuck together but now it looks totally incoherent

(a copy and paste from the PDF so not well formatted)
One obvious point of physics ignorance is the inclusion of SO symmetry groups. These appear in specific solutions of QFT. The major example is the Standard Model of particle physics. An undergraduate textbook example of a solution without SO is the hydrogen atom which has spherical symmetry. Ising spin systems should not have any of these symmetry groups.
16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics.

16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics.

He writes a section on " Transverse Field Ising Spin (Super)–Hamiltonian Quantum Computation" so it would be reasonable that the references are to literature on Ising spin but then we have
Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale is not about Ising spin at all! Or any Ising spin computation. Or any "(Super)–Hamiltonian".
It is almost as if the paper was selected form a Google search for supersymmetry and maybe brain.

16 October 2017: An irrelevant not Ising spin reference in an Ising spin section.

(1) The (super) Hamiltonian paper was what sparked the idea of attempting to utilize Amin's Quantum Boltzmann machine experiment, together with the quantum reinforcement learning sequence, to do some sampling in superspace, of course given supersymetric methods at brain scale.

This superspace aligned sampling requires super hamiltonian formulation, and a general form of that is observed in the (Super-) Hamiltonian source, and is currently expressed in thought curvature.


(2) With regards to the highlighted portions of yours above, and (1), a more specific form of the superspace formulation required, may be derived from the source below (but not expressed in thought curvature):

N=1 SQCD and the Transverse Field Ising Model

 

[Reality Check]

(1) ...

Nothing that makes your word salad any less incoherent.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Nothing that makes your word salad any less incoherent.

Anyway, apart from item (1) from my quote below, do you still maintain that your earlier Ising / symmetry group diagnosis is valid? (as seen here and here)

(1) The (super) Hamiltonian paper was what sparked the idea of attempting to utilize Amin's Quantum Boltzmann machine experiment, together with the quantum reinforcement learning sequence, to do some sampling in superspace, of course given supersymetric methods at brain scale.

This superspace aligned sampling requires super hamiltonian formulation, and a general form of that is observed in the (Super-) Hamiltonian source, and is currently expressed in thought curvature.


(2) With regards to the highlighted portions of yours above, and (1), a more specific form of the superspace formulation required, may be derived from the source below (but not expressed in thought curvature):

N=1 SQCD and the Transverse Field Ising Model

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

[IMGw=200]https://i.imgur.com/AQmBQCX.gif[/IMGw]

@RealityCheck, btw, you made a reasonable effort while introducing the transverse field Ising symmetry group topic, and I thank you for pointing out that "impossibility"; although it turns out that it is a possibility, being quite viable instead.

I lack a physics degree, but based on the data observed, I had detected the possibility of this Transverse Field Ising Supersymmetric Hamiltonian paradigm.

So, I had then posed a question (regarding your very discussion above) to several forums, roughly a month prior to now:

(1) https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...field-ising-spin-compatible-super-hamiltonian

(2) http://www.thephysicsforum.com/quan...-ising-spin-compatible-super-hamiltonian.html

(3) https://www.physicsoverflow.org/39603/possible-create-transverse-ising-compatible-hamiltonian

(4) http://www.thescienceforum.com/phys...-ising-spin-compatible-super-hamiltonian.html

(5) http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/...eld-ising-spin’-compatible-super-hamiltonian/

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Small nitpick:
There were other replies too.

Then feel free to reproduce them here. Although this time you should email him asking for his permission first. As it is, all we have is a reply in which he tells you to read his book, and a reply to someone else in which he says that he usually can't understand what you're trying to say.

What we don't have is a reply in which he in any way acknowledges the term you're saying Reality Check is wrong for calling "gibberish" - "Deepmnd atari q architecture". If you do have such a reply then, again, feel free to reproduce it here - again, after actually asking his permission first.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Here is an interesting video on artificial super intelligence:

Incredible you actually believe machine intelligence of the future will use bionary logic Circuits.

We are going so far Past them that your grasp of the tech will be shortly 100 years out of date.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Incredible you actually believe machine intelligence of the future will use bionary logic Circuits.

We are going so far Past them that your grasp of the tech will be shortly 100 years out of date.

What are "bionary" circuits?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Then feel free to reproduce them here. Although this time you should email him asking for his permission first. As it is, all we have is a reply in which he tells you to read his book, and a reply to someone else in which he says that he usually can't understand what you're trying to say.

An example was already provided here.

What we don't have is a reply in which he in any way acknowledges the term you're saying Reality Check is wrong for calling "gibberish" - "Deepmnd atari q architecture". If you do have such a reply then, again, feel free to reproduce it here - again, after actually asking his permission first.

Yes, but we have a question posed to and perfectly answered by Bengio.

Regardless of your burning focus on RealityCheck's bandwagon, it is not strange or novel to mention those words:

https://github.com/kuz/DeepMind-Atari-Deep-Q-Learner

https://keon.io/deep-q-learning/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eYniJ0Rnk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, I did indeed have to rephrase merely a few questions. (One or two...).

Then you are calling him a liar.

Notably, the same crucial portion of a question posed to and answered perfectly by Bengio, was labelled as "gibberish" by another member here, as I outlined here.

I have already responded to that post. If you want to know what my response to that post is, go back and read my response to that post.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, but we have a question posed to and perfectly answered by Bengio.

Good, then we agree that "What we don't have is a reply in which he in any way acknowledges the term you're saying Reality Check is wrong for calling 'gibberish'". Then, as the god of logic, you must agree that the replies cannot be used as evidence against Reality Check's assertion. The question, then, is why you have presented that reply as if it were evidence against Reality Check's assertion.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Then you are calling him a liar.

I rephrased a few questions, you can have abaddon fact check that.

I have already responded to that post. If you want to know what my response to that post is, go back and read my response to that post.

See this post.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Good, then we agree that "What we don't have is a reply in which he in any way acknowledges the term you're saying Reality Check is wrong for calling 'gibberish'". Then, as the god of logic, you must agree that the replies cannot be used as evidence against Reality Check's assertion. The question, then, is why you have presented that reply as if it were evidence against Reality Check's assertion.

Let's say that if it was gibberish as RealityCheck claimed, it would likely have been ignored by Bengio.

Instead, we have a good answer by Bengio, particularly contingent on the question's content.

Also, you should consider the quote below:

Regardless of your burning focus on RealityCheck's bandwagon, it is not strange or novel to mention those words:

https://github.com/kuz/DeepMind-Atari-Deep-Q-Learner

https://keon.io/deep-q-learning/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eYniJ0Rnk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I rephrased a few questions, you can have abaddon fact check that.

You are calling him a liar.

See this post.

What of it?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Let's say that if it was gibberish as RealityCheck claimed, it would likely have been ignored by Bengio.

The term in question was ignored by Bengio.

And your post has nothing to do with the post it was replying to. I was commenting on your logic, or rather lack thereof. Avoiding answering that point is also not logical.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

The term in question was ignored by Bengio.

And your post has nothing to do with the post it was replying to. I was commenting on your logic, or rather lack thereof. Avoiding answering that point is also not logical.

Maybe it's good to avoid mob logic:

What we don't have is a reply in which he in any way acknowledges the term you're saying Reality Check is wrong for calling "gibberish" - "Deepmnd atari q architecture". If you do have such a reply then, again, feel free to reproduce it here - again, after actually asking his permission first.

Yes, but we have a question posed to and perfectly answered by Bengio.

Regardless of your burning focus on RealityCheck's bandwagon, it is not strange or novel to mention those words:

https://github.com/kuz/DeepMind-Atari-Deep-Q-Learner

https://keon.io/deep-q-learning/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1eYniJ0Rnk

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

You are calling him a liar.

Here is where your issue is.

You continue to limit usually to mean many cases, when usually can mean mainly.

That is your problem.

As I said before, I merely rephrased a few questions, and you can ask abaddon to fact check that. (Although I doubt Bengio will answer any more of his irrelevant questions)

Unless you can provide evidence to align with your version of the word usually, it is better to maintain silence...

 

[fagin]

What is that silly little dancing man?

Dare you explain in words what you are implying about Squeegee Beckenheim, or are you lacking the courage of your convictions?

 

[Reality Check]

...

Replies to a list of ignorant math and physics word salad with an inane image and the idiocy that a couple of people communicating with him says that he cannot write ignorant word salad. What he actually writes includes ignorance and gibberish, for example

A probable experiment: A Transverse Field Ising Spin (Super)–Hamiltonian Quantum Computation
Considering the Bessel aligned second-order linear damping equation: �� ̃ = (z + 1/λ)1/2[C1I√5/2(α(z + 1/λ)) + C2 I −√5/2(α(z + 1/λ))]eµz [12], constrained in the Montroll potential uM(ξ) [12], via Zλ, given that any SO group is reducible to SU typically SU(2) [16]; within the aforesaid constraint, the Hamiltonian operator: − ∑ Γ �� a σ�� �� − ∑ �� �� a σ�� �� − ∑ w ��,�� ab σ�� �� σ�� �� [13] is reasonably applicable in the quantum temporal difference horizon: π(s1) ← argmaxa Q(s1, a) [14] as a Super-Hamiltonian [15] in contrast.
Consequently, some odd operation of form {H ± F, H ± F}1 = ±2QH, {H + F, H − F}1 = {H ± F, QH }1 = {QH, QH}1 = 0 [15] subsuming − ∑ Γ �� a σ�� �� − ∑ �� �� a σ�� �� − ∑ w ��,�� ab σ�� �� σ�� �� [13] is theoretically absorbable in [14].