ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics
- Thread starter ProgrammingGodJordan
- Start date
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
I did not write that. Bessel functions are the result of solving a QM problem with cylindrical symmetry as in the cited "tubes in the brain" paper. Part of the ignorance in your Ising model gibberish is including particle physics and that "tubes in the brain" paper.
16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics.
16 October 2017: An irrelevant not Ising spin reference in an Ising spin section.[/QUOTE]
17 October 2017: An ignorant start with Bessel functions involved with solutions of systems with cylindrical symmetry.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible"
A post asserting "you made a reasonable effort while introducing the transverse field Ising symmetry group topic" links to 16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics. and labels it as "impossible". My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.
Thus
17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible"
I maintain that you have not provided any evidence that Ising model has symmetry groups or that they are SO
and that it is up to you to do that. A basic part of science is that it is up to the proposer of the theory to support their theory.
For others:
This happens to be the 50 year anniversary of Weinberg’s "A Model of Leptons" paper which is a foundational paper in the Standard Model. It is this paper that introduced electroweak unification when Weinberg had an Aha moment. He realized that SU(2)×SU(2) would not work but SU(2)×U(1) would unify the electromagnetic and weak forces.
Birth of a symmetry at CERN Courier.
I maintain that you are lying about me stating that so let see...
A post asserting "you made a reasonable effort while introducing the transverse field Ising symmetry group topic" links to 16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics. and labels it as "impossible". My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.
Thus
17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible"
I maintain that you have not provided any evidence that Ising model has symmetry groups or that they are SO
and that it is up to you to do that. A basic part of science is that it is up to the proposer of the theory to support their theory.For others:
This happens to be the 50 year anniversary of Weinberg’s "A Model of Leptons" paper which is a foundational paper in the Standard Model. It is this paper that introduced electroweak unification when Weinberg had an Aha moment. He realized that SU(2)×SU(2) would not work but SU(2)×U(1) would unify the electromagnetic and weak forces.
Birth of a symmetry at CERN Courier.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
17 October 2017: Ignorantly chucks in "(super-)Hamiltonian"
Next from that Ising Spin not-an-experiment section is
17 October 2017: Ignorantly chucks in an ireelvant "(super-)Hamiltonian" from reference [15]
Here are the references in that section:
[12]. P´erez et al. “Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale”, 2007.
[13]. Mohammad H. Amin, Evgeny Andriyash et al. “Quantum Boltzmann Machine”, 2016.
[14]. Daniel Crawford, Anna Levit et al. “Reinforcement Learning Using Quantum Boltzmann Machines”, 2016.
[15]. Armen Nersessian “Elements of (super-)Hamiltonian Formalism”, 2005.
[16]. Wikipedia “Orthogonal Groups”.
Elements of (super-)Hamiltonian Formalism
Next from that Ising Spin not-an-experiment section is
17 October 2017: Ignorantly chucks in an ireelvant "(super-)Hamiltonian" from reference [15]
Here are the references in that section:
[12]. P´erez et al. “Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale”, 2007.
[13]. Mohammad H. Amin, Evgeny Andriyash et al. “Quantum Boltzmann Machine”, 2016.
[14]. Daniel Crawford, Anna Levit et al. “Reinforcement Learning Using Quantum Boltzmann Machines”, 2016.
[15]. Armen Nersessian “Elements of (super-)Hamiltonian Formalism”, 2005.
[16]. Wikipedia “Orthogonal Groups”.
Elements of (super-)Hamiltonian Formalism
No "Ising" in the abstract. No "Ising" in the text. Classical mechanics. No relevance.
Last edited:
As do so many of us posting here and similar places in these many threads!!!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12035527#post12035527
17 October 2017: An ignorant start with Bessel functions involved with solutions of systems with cylindrical symmetry.[/QUOTE]
And, thus I refute Beelzy!!! (Mid- 1900's SF story title)!!! John Collier: http://ciscohouston.com/docs/docs/greats/refute_beelzy.html
for those who might wish to read same!!!
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
No, you tend to ignore errors pointed out to you. For example, you tend to call people 'beings', insisting they are interchangeable. Is it appropriate to refer to posters as 'animals', too?
Ok, do you get how ridiculous it is that you actually feel that you have to provide evidence that someone, somewhere can understand you in any context?
The first two links show no responses at all to your questions (except for one poster asking what a Super Hamiltonian is). Pray tell, how does this demonstrate that others understand you? Other posters in your links wonder if you are serious and question your abilities in calculus and algebra.
Just to be clear: you cite (lay?) as evidence that you are understood posts that no one has commented on or responded to. Do you seriously consider this to be convincing evidence that you are understood?
A further query: does anyone you know use words like 'beings', 'thusly', 'blather' and the like as you utilize them, and with similar frequency? What might this tell you about how off-the-wall these expressions are? From an observational standpoint, of course.
Also, you ducked the issue again: evidence has been presented that Yoshua Bengio speaks english fluently (took me less than thirty seconds on Google), yet claims he frequently cannot understand you. You suggest this may be due to his 'french nature'. Do you still 'garner' the problem is with his comprehension?
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
I maintain that you are lying about me stating that so let see...
A post asserting "you made a reasonable effort while introducing the transverse field Ising symmetry group topic" links to 16 October 2017: Ignorant inclusion of symmetry groups appearing in the Standard Model of particle physics. and labels it as "impossible". My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.
Thus
17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible"
I maintain that you have not provided any evidence that Ising model has symmetry groups or that they are SO
For others:
This happens to be the 50 year anniversary of Weinberg’s "A Model of Leptons" paper which is a foundational paper in the Standard Model. It is this paper that introduced electroweak unification when Weinberg had an Aha moment. He realized that SU(2)×SU(2) would not work but SU(2)×U(1) would unify the electromagnetic and weak forces.
Birth of a symmetry at CERN Courier.
See the following:
N=1 SQCD and the Transverse Field Ising Model
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
Something referring to Ising is observed in the red area below (as seen in thought curvature):
[IMGw=660]https://i.imgur.com/z6zbtOg.png[/IMGw]
I already expressed that the green portion is a general, "odd" form (considering Zλ...), dealing with supersymmetry, while the red portion deals with Ising as seen in Quantum Boltzmann machine.
With the above in mind, one may generate a Transverse Ising Super Hamiltonian, as indicated here.
Last edited:
ProgrammingGodJordan
Banned
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
So, I looked at the responses PGJ posted from this Mordred fellow.
I noticed that they are private messages and thus there is no way for anyone to check them for accuracy.
What to do, what to do? Well, since they are from scienceforums, let's pay a visit. I'm not a member there, so I will only see whatever is publicly available. So I did.
One quick search later, I got to here.
Boy was that uncanny. The same topics posted. The same copypasta posts complete with rainbow fontasia. The same replies from members there. It was as if I was still here.
Have fun.
ETA: Bet he didn't ask Mordred for permission either.
I noticed that they are private messages and thus there is no way for anyone to check them for accuracy.
What to do, what to do? Well, since they are from scienceforums, let's pay a visit. I'm not a member there, so I will only see whatever is publicly available. So I did.
One quick search later, I got to here.
Boy was that uncanny. The same topics posted. The same copypasta posts complete with rainbow fontasia. The same replies from members there. It was as if I was still here.
Have fun.
ETA: Bet he didn't ask Mordred for permission either.
fagin
Philosopher
abaddon, you are a bad person. That was hilarious.
Apart from a number of people expressing degrees of confusion over his misuse of language
Apart from a number of people expressing degrees of confusion over his misuse of language
I particularly liked one of the comments from a moderator:
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I'm saying that it's crystal clear that my understanding of English is far superior to yours.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I'd rather consider something that was relevant to my argument.
Again, just for clarity, I was discussing your lack of logic. If you want to reply to what I've said, you need to address your lack of logic, rather than making an entirely different argument in an attempt to distract away from your previous illogical argument.
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
halleyscomet
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2012
- Messages
- 10,259
But they seem so small!!!
We joke, but as abaddon uncovered with the off-site posts, PGJ has a long standing communication problem that has been repeatedly pointed out by multiple people in more than one venue and he still persists in dismissing it as a “bandwagon.”
Why?
At what point will he consider he might actually have a communication problem?
He’s hobbling any discussions he tries to have about his AI and mathematics ideas by refusing to address his major communication issues. One wonders why he persists.
Thermal
August Member
Yes, you did approach it. Then you handwaved it away. You present facetious examples as an argument...which show exactly what you have been doing for lo these many threads (interchanging synonyms without regard to their nuance). Your 'silly' examples demonstrate precisely what you are actually doing.
Ah, a 'whatabout'. You really want to go there? Ok.
1) In your first example, with 'Mordred', you ask a shop question and s/he briefly gives you some advice on fixing it.
2&3) You snip the next two examples, as they are completely dishonest.
4) Next, on PhysicsOverflow, one short post asking what you have in mind (indicative of not understanding), then another poster concludes that the material is 'ridiculously abstract for this purpose', then no further comments.
5) On TheScienceForum, one lone post noting the inconsistent usage of words in the cited work. You ask what the poster thinks, and no further response.
6) Finally, on ScienceForums, two posters questioning your abilities in math and whether or not you are even serious. One opined that s/he had 'ideas on how to fix this, but the poster will have to return for me to waste that much time'.
So this is your evidence for people having no problems understanding you? Hearkening a turn of phrase from my youth, this evidence honks on Bobo.
And you continue to dodge: evidence presented shows that Bengio, a fluent english speaker, ignores most of your emails, saying they are incomprehensible. Do you still maintain that the problem is his comprehension?
Baby, we talked about this. It's your game, and you insist it continues.
Last edited: