Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

abaddon said:
Well, I am not entirely without empathy so...

Imagine you sent me a mail demanding that I had over my home to you. Imagine further that I sent a reply telling you to "get lost" or similar.

By any measure, that would be "exchanging words". The term "exchanged words" is thus meaningless without reference to exactly which words were exchanged.

As for "collaborated", while you may not have used that precise word, you strongly implied exactly that. You progressively downgraded it to "had a conversation with", to exchanged emails with", to "sent incomprehensible emails to" as you were pressed by I and others here and finally blamed him for not understanding you in a blatantly racist statement. The one reply you cited was a correction he sent to you and a recommendation that you read his book. You failed to have the basic respect to even ask for permission to cite and then misrepresented the one reply to did cite without permission.

In the face of all of that behaviour, how motivated do you think I am to trawl back through the thread for evidence you will simply ignore anyway?
Click to expand...

(1) By his french nature, I was referring to his language.

(2) I didn't downplay anything, even if I had said "had a conversation with", that carries the same meaning as "exchanged emails with".

You may need to look up the word conversation.

(3) Not all my messages faced parsing problems. At the end of the day, he did answer my questions:


XWN4W6e.png


x3RM20F.png

 
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
(1) By his french nature, I was referring to his language.

(2) I didn't downplay anything, even if I had said "had a conversation with", that carries the same meaning as "exchanged emails with".

You may need to look up the word conversation.

(3) Not all my messages faced parsing problems. At the end of the day, he did answer my questions:


[qimg]https://imgur.com/XWN4W6e.png[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/x3RM20F.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Well, collaborate might not be the right word, but

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Perhaps if you pursued Ai, the PDF wouldn't appear like gibberish to you.

I've exchanged emails with people like Bengio Yoshua, about the contents of Thought Curvature, and he didn't respond to me as if the paper was gibberish. At any cost, physics probably won't be complete without describing the observer (i.e. human level intelligence)

Perhaps Tegmark is onto something fruitful...
Click to expand...

He corrected you once, suggested you read his book, and in emails to abaddon, suggested if not gibberish, your language was difficult to understand. His English seems very good, so by implication, yours must be a bit ****.

And if you'd just said language instead of nature, people would actually have understood what you meant, instead of sounding like a racist.
 
fagin said:
Well, collaborate might not be the right word, but



He corrected you once, suggested you read his book, and in emails to abaddon, suggested if not gibberish, your language was difficult to understand. His English seems very good, so by implication, yours must be a bit ****.

And if you'd just said language instead of nature, people would actually have understood what you meant, instead of sounding like a racist.
Click to expand...

(1) No, it definitely wasn't gibberish, he briefly discussed the use of manifolds in deep learning, just before redirecting me to his book.

Of course, that was quite helpful, and manifolds are precisely what may be used to learn factors of variation, in euclidean like space. (which was appropriate for the problem in the question I posed)

(2) Despite the instance that I had specified that I was referring to Bengio's language, as seen on the previous page here, abaddon still proceeded to accuse me of racist attacks.

...then you promptly jumped on that bandwagon.

[IMGw=180]https://i.imgur.com/TzsdcX9.png[/IMGw]

Why do you love bandwagons so much? Don't you see that bandwagons may lead one to ignore evidence (as you demonstrably did above)?
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
Pity you don't do sarcasm.

I quite liked this quote about your misuse of language:
Click to expand...

I could also play that game, I could also switch in perfectly usable words you guys employ, with some other synonym that would not be appropriate in whatever scenario they were initially employed in.

This however, would not change that the initial words were properly used.

In the like, the initial words I use are appropriate.



Footnote:

For example, let me do a worthless switch on your statement above, in a similar way you guys would treat my words:
Switched Fagin Statement said:
Pity Compassion you don't do sarcasm scorn.
Click to expand...

As you can probably see, the switch above makes no darn sense (and you guys love doing these), and it attempts to solve an error that didn't initially exist.
It could be seen as somewhat amusing, however utterly worthless.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Well, I am not entirely without empathy so...

Imagine you sent me a mail demanding that I had over my home to you. Imagine further that I sent a reply telling you to "get lost" or similar.

By any measure, that would be "exchanging words". The term "exchanged words" is thus meaningless without reference to exactly which words were exchanged.

As for "collaborated", while you may not have used that precise word, you strongly implied exactly that. You progressively downgraded it to "had a conversation with", to exchanged emails with", to "sent incomprehensible emails to" as you were pressed by I and others here and finally blamed him for not understanding you in a blatantly racist statement. The one reply you cited was a correction he sent to you and a recommendation that you read his book. You failed to have the basic respect to even ask for permission to cite and then misrepresented the one reply to did cite without permission.
Click to expand...


PGJ also implied that Bengio had no problems with PGJ's use of English.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
I could also play that game, I could also switch in perfectly usable words you guys employ, with some other synonym that would not be appropriate in whatever scenario they were initially employed in.

This however, would not change that the initial words weren't properly used.

In the like, the initial words I use are appropriate.



Footnote:

For example, let me do a worthless switch on your statement above, in a similar way you guys would treat my words:


As you can probably see, the switch above makes no darn sense (and you guys love doing these), and it attempts to solve an error that didn't initially exist.
It could be seen as somewhat amusing, however utterly worthless.
Click to expand...


Yes, if you substitute words that are synonymous in one sense for usages other than that particular sense, the results are worthless. But you don't need to mess about with other peoples' posts to demonstrate this: you have already adequately demonstrated it with your own.
 
Mojo said:
PGJ also implied that Bengio had no problems with PGJ's use of English.
Click to expand...

Not another bandwagon fan...

[IMGw=180]https://i.imgur.com/vk91QzF.jpg[/IMGw]

Look, just as abaddon wanted to present that I was being racist, contrary to evidence, you may derive from that quote what you desire.

However, it remains a valid expression, there was no long standing debate regarding my English via Bengio.

I simply slightly rephrased some question, after he had remarked of parsing problems.
 
Mojo said:
Yes, if you substitute words that are synonymous in one sense for usages other than that particular sense, the results are worthless. But you don't need to mess about with other peoples' posts to demonstrate this: you have already adequately demonstrated it with your own.
Click to expand...

My prior quote is still demonstrably valid, bandwagoner.

You can't demonstrate evidence for your quote above, save for the story-line that the bandwagon has engendered.

The bandwagon is strong with this one.
 
Argumemnon said:
I think he achieved pretty well a demonstration that you were, in fact, not being truthful.
Click to expand...

How has he supposedly done this, without presenting evidence of the lie he accused me of?

How does this pertain to thought curvature?

[IMGw=340]https://i.imgur.com/o2nvGNR.jpg[/IMGw]

Still waiting for any evidence of any lie I supposedly told, w.r.t. Bengio Yoshua, and my exchanges with him...

...but do proceed on your bandwagon journey...
 
Last edited:
Quote page 66 onward with C∞(Rn) from Geometric, Algebraic and Topological ...

  1. 8 August 2017: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  2. 14 August 2017: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
  3. 14 August 2017: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
  4. 14 August 2017: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
  5. 16 August 2017: Thought Curvature DeepMind bad scholarship (no citations) and some incoherence
  6. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature uetorch bad scholarship (no citations) and incoherence
  7. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature irrelevant "childhood neocortical framework" sentence and missing citation.
  8. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature "non-invariant fabric" gibberish.
  9. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature Partial paradox reduction gibberish and missing citations.
  10. 4 October 2017: Looks like an expanded incoherent document starting with title: "Thought Curvature: An underivative hypothesis"
  11. 4 October 2017: "An underivative hypothesis": An abstract of incoherent word salad linking to a PDF of worse gibberish.
  12. 4 October 2017: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong because the paper does not have any manifold learning frameworks
  13. 4 October 2017: Links to people basically ignoring his ideas in 2 forum threads!
  14. 4 October 2017: It is a lie that I stated that manifold learning frameworks is in the paper.
  15. 4 October 2017: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!
  16. 5 October 2017: A link to a PDF repeating a delusion of a "Deepmnd atari q architecture".
  17. 5 October 2017: A lie about an "irrelevant one line description of deep q learning" when I quoted a relevant DeepMind Wikipedia article.
  18. 5 October 2017: No experiment at all, proposed or actual at the given link or PDF!
  19. 5 October 2017: A PDF section title lies about a probable experiment no experiment at all, proposed or actual.
  20. 6 October 2017: Insults about knowledge of machine learning when I displayed knowledge by looking for something I knew about (pooling versus non-pooling layers).
  21. 12 October 2017: Resorts to a repeated insult of my level of knowledge of machine learning.
  22. 12 October 2017: Thought curvature v? - the "abstract" is word salad with no real meaning.
  23. 12 October 2017: Thought curvature gibberish becomes obvious in the PDF abstract
  24. 12 October 2017: There is no "empirical evidence pertaining to supersymmetry in the biological brain" in [12].
  25. 12 October 2017: A mathematician commented on that C∞(Rn) nonsense months ago
  26. 12 October 2017: Links to a repeated lie of "shown to lack basic Machine Learning know how.".
  27. 12 October 2017: A lie about a Wikipedia article which does not have any C∞(Rn).
  28. 12 October 2017: A lie of "Algebraic Geometry over C∞-rings" is about Euclidean superspaces (may be in a reference though).
  29. 12 October 2017: A lie that C∞(Rn) "stuff" is in reference 13 ("Homological Algebra for Superalgebras of Differentiable Functions")
An outstanding question that may make turn those C∞(Rn) "stuff" citations into mistakes:
12 October 2017: Quote page 66 onward from your copy of Geometric, Algebraic and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
  1. 8 August 2017: Ignorant math word salad on academia.edu (gibberish title and worse contents).
  2. 14 August 2017: Thought Curvature abstract starts with actual gibberish.
  3. 14 August 2017: Thought Curvature abstract that lies about your previous wrong definition.
  4. 14 August 2017: A Curvature abstract ends with ignorant gibberish: "Ergo the paradox axiomatizes".
  5. 16 August 2017: Thought Curvature DeepMind bad scholarship (no citations) and some incoherence
  6. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature uetorch bad scholarship (no citations) and incoherence
  7. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature irrelevant "childhood neocortical framework" sentence and missing citation.
  8. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature "non-invariant fabric" gibberish.
  9. 18 August 2017: Thought Curvature Partial paradox reduction gibberish and missing citations.
  10. 4 October 2017: Looks like an expanded incoherent document starting with title: "Thought Curvature: An underivative hypothesis"
  11. 4 October 2017: "An underivative hypothesis": An abstract of incoherent word salad linking to a PDF of worse gibberish.
  12. 4 October 2017: "Supermathematics ...": The "manifold learning frameworks" link is wrong because the paper does not have any manifold learning frameworks
  13. 4 October 2017: Links to people basically ignoring his ideas in 2 forum threads!
  14. 4 October 2017: It is a lie that I stated that manifold learning frameworks is in the paper.
  15. 4 October 2017: Lists messages form someone mostly ignoring his work!
  16. 5 October 2017: A link to a PDF repeating a delusion of a "Deepmnd atari q architecture".
  17. 5 October 2017: A lie about an "irrelevant one line description of deep q learning" when I quoted a relevant DeepMind Wikipedia article.
  18. 5 October 2017: No experiment at all, proposed or actual at the given link or PDF!
  19. 5 October 2017: A PDF section title lies about a probable experiment no experiment at all, proposed or actual.
  20. 6 October 2017: Insults about knowledge of machine learning when I displayed knowledge by looking for something I knew about (pooling versus non-pooling layers).
  21. 12 October 2017: Resorts to a repeated insult of my level of knowledge of machine learning.
  22. 12 October 2017: Thought curvature v? - the "abstract" is word salad with no real meaning.
  23. 12 October 2017: Thought curvature gibberish becomes obvious in the PDF abstract
  24. 12 October 2017: There is no "empirical evidence pertaining to supersymmetry in the biological brain" in [12].
  25. 12 October 2017: A mathematician commented on that C∞(Rn) nonsense months ago
  26. 12 October 2017: Links to a repeated lie of "shown to lack basic Machine Learning know how.".
  27. 12 October 2017: A lie about a Wikipedia article which does not have any C∞(Rn).
  28. 12 October 2017: A lie of "Algebraic Geometry over C∞-rings" is about Euclidean superspaces (may be in a reference though).
  29. 12 October 2017: A lie that C∞(Rn) "stuff" is in reference 13 ("Homological Algebra for Superalgebras of Differentiable Functions")
An outstanding question that may make turn those C∞(Rn) "stuff" citations into mistakes:
12 October 2017: Quote page 66 onward from your copy of Geometric, Algebraic and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory.
Click to expand...

[IMGw=270]https://i.imgur.com/I4Qx7x8.gif[/IMGw]

ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Notably though, the same crucial content that was acknowledged and answered by by Yoshua Bengio, pioneer in Deep Neural Networks (with actual machine learning experience) as seen here, (which is in the current thought curvature version) was labelled as gibberish by another poster here. (See here or here)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom