Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

[abaddon]

Just an aside on the rules here, Rule 8 is as follows:

8. You may only post a Member's personal information if it is both publicly available and is relevant to the ongoing discussion

The first half of the above is clearly met. However, it would be difficult to find any reason to think that PGJ's home address is relevant to the subject of the thread, and so anyone tempted to post the publicly available information would, in my view, be taking a big risk with their ongoing membership of the forum. IANOM, of course, just someone who values the contribution many here make and wouldn't want to see too many more leave.

While I have not done so and decline to do so, he has granted permission for me to do so. Rule 8 therefore does not apply.

ETA: I am trying to snag a mod on the offending site to see If I can address the issue from that end.

 

[MikeG]

Can you provide evidence of your claim above?

Sure:

here

here

here

 

[Reality Check]

Back to the topic as suggested by PGJ !
29 posts related to thought curvature gibberish starting on 8 August 2017.
Still unanswered: 12 October 2017: Quote page 66 onward from your copy of Geometric, Algebraic and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory.
A couple of weeks more and this will have to become a probable lie about that book.

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.

17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible" (My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.)

17 October 2017: Ignorantly chucks in an irrelevant "(super-)Hamiltonian" from reference [15] - a paper on classical mechanics.

We have yet another post with the Ising gibberish in an image and a link to:
17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible" (My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.)

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Back to the topic as suggested by PGJ !
29 posts related to thought curvature gibberish starting on 8 August 2017.
Still unanswered: 12 October 2017: Quote page 66 onward from your copy of Geometric, Algebraic and Topological Methods for Quantum Field Theory.
A couple of weeks more and this will have to become a probable lie about that book.

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.

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.
17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible" (My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.)
17 October 2017: Ignorantly chucks in an irrelevant "(super-)Hamiltonian" from reference [15] - a paper on classical mechanics.

Did you forget your prior post:
"Ising spin systems should not have any of these symmetry groups."

Why did you make that irrelevant post (especially when my paper does not include any symmetry group/ising exaggeration)?

The outcome is that you made those irrelevant/false posts, because:

(a) You were not yet aware of this

or

(b) You didn't remember that something like this configuration could exist

 

[Reality Check]

Did you forget your prior post:

I did not.
17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible" (My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.)
A different topic is that is very ignorant to think that the symmetry groups of the Standard Model automatically applies to the Ising spin model.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I did not.
17 October 2017: A lie that I maintain that transverse field ising symmetry groups are "impossible" (My post was about the fundamental physics that the Standard Model has symmetry groups.)
A different topic is that is very ignorant to think that the symmetry groups of the Standard Model automatically applies to the Ising spin model.

You have no evidence that I made any such ising/symmetry group exaggeration; those links don't do your claims any justice, they are often links to other unjustified claims.

As you can see in the quote below, you did accuse me of some sort of Ising/symmetry group exaggeration, as seen in the red highlighted text below. (the source with your quote, is seen in the url following the green underlined text too)

Did you forget your prior post:
"Ising spin systems should not have any of these symmetry groups."

Why did you make that irrelevant post (especially when my paper does not include any symmetry group/ising exaggeration)?

The outcome is that you made those irrelevant/false posts, because:

(a) You were not yet aware of this

or

(b) You didn't remember that something like this configuration could exist

 

[Reality Check]

The Wikipedia Orthogonal group article does not support "any SO group ..."

Why did you make that irrelevant post (especially when my paper does not include any symmetry group/ising exaggeration)?

A post ignorant about your PDF which does include symmetry groups or an "exaggeration" fantasy?

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

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].

The highlighted text is the symmetry groups.

I an stating that you do not give a reference for any Ising symmetry groups and that the ones you mention appear in the Standard Model.

Next:
18 October 2017: The Wikipedia Orthogonal group article does not support his "any SO group is reducible to SU, typically SU(2)" statement.
There is no such statement in the Orthogonal group article.

You have images of PMs from Mordred. That text comes from Mordred.

 

[halleyscomet]

Oh wait, you actually included the wikipedia link I had long included.
You really should read it.

Are there any specific quotes from the Wikipedia article you see as particularly relevant?

In related news, not all "authorities" on the English language are created equal:

 

[abaddon]

How so?

I have the advantage of an actual address to use (no, not sharing it).

In his immediate vicinity we have a babtist church, an adventist church, an apostolic church and three more that are whacked out fringe churches. PGJ is surrounded. He has my sympathy.

 

[Reality Check]

You have no evidence that I made any such ising/symmetry group exaggeration; ...

That statement is getting close to another lie and should not be repeated.
My claim is not about an imaginary "ising/symmetry group exaggeration".

My claim is textbook physics - the Standard Model includes SU(2).
My claim is that the Ising model is not the Standard Model (duh!) and so should not have the same symmetry groups.
Your still unsupported claim as in the several times you have posted images of your Ising section is that some Ising thing does include symmetry groups that are also used in the Standard Model. You need to support your claim. I write "some Ising thing" because the assertion is at the end of a sentence about a Bessel equation + Montroll potential from a paper that is nothing to do with Ising !
16 October 2017: An irrelevant not Ising spin reference in an Ising spin section.

For others: Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale

 

[Reality Check]

An irrelevant neurons and brain paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal

Speaking of Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale.

The entire reference in the PDF is "12. P´erez et al. “Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale”, 2007.". This immediately rings alarm bells. A reference to a published paper should include where it was published. This is a persistent mistake in the PDF references - no journal citations.

I found the pre-print of Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale. The problem is that this 2007 pre-print has no evidence at the archive that it was published. Thus PGJ forces his readers to go looking for the published paper.
Does the pre-print PDF state that it was published? No.
Are there any citations of the pre-print or published paper? No.
What does ADS give us? Whoops - in a book, not published in a peer reviewed journal!

18 October 2017: An irrelevant neurons and brain paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
This means that it skipped an important part of the scientific process. Experts in the field have not read or reviewed the paper. The pre-print has been ignored for 10 years now. That suggests that people in the field think that it is not worth citing.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Speaking of Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale.

The entire reference in the PDF is "12. P´erez et al. “Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale”, 2007.". This immediately rings alarm bells. A reference to a published paper should include where it was published. This is a persistent mistake in the PDF references - no journal citations.

I found the pre-print of Supersymmetric methods in the traveling variable: inside neurons and at the brain scale. The problem is that this 2007 pre-print has no evidence at the archive that it was published. Thus PGJ forces his readers to go looking for the published paper.
Does the pre-print PDF state that it was published? No.
Are there any citations of the pre-print or published paper? No.
What does ADS give us? Whoops - in a book, not published in a peer reviewed journal!

18 October 2017: An irrelevant neurons and brain paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.
This means that it skipped an important part of the scientific process. Experts in the field have not read or reviewed the paper. The pre-print has been ignored for 10 years now. That suggests that people in the field think that it is not worth citing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

"Although the arXiv is not peer reviewed, a collection of moderators for each area review the submissions; they may recategorize any that are deemed off-topic,[17] or reject submissions that are not scientific papers. The lists of moderators for many sections of the arXiv are publicly available,[18]"

"Additionally, an "endorsement" system was introduced in 2004 as part of an effort to ensure content is relevant and of interest to current research in the specified disciplines.[19] Under the system, for categories that use it, an author must be endorsed by an established arXiv author before being allowed to submit papers to those categories."

 

[Loss Leader]

About 30 posts have been removed from this thread to AAH. Matters of grammar are off topic. Since the issue appears to be of such interest, please allow this to finally put the matter to rest permanently: The correct word was, "fewer". Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

A post ignorant about your PDF which does include symmetry groups or an "exaggeration" fantasy?

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

The highlighted text is the symmetry groups.

I an stating that you do not give a reference for any Ising symmetry groups and that the ones you mention appear in the Standard Model.

Next:
18 October 2017: The Wikipedia Orthogonal group article does not support his "any SO group is reducible to SU, typically SU(2)" statement.There is no such statement in the Orthogonal group article.

You have images of PMs from Mordred. That text comes from Mordred.

Mordred's presentation: "SO group is reducible to SU most commonly SU(2)" (as seen here)
Thought Curvature Paper: "SO group is reducible to SU typically SU(2)" (as seen here)

Doesn't the following portion from the orthogonal page somewhat indicate the validity of Mordred's presentation above?

 

[Reality Check]

Confirms that his PDF lies about the source for his symmetry group irrelevance

Mordred's presentation...

18 October 2017: Confirms that his PDF lies about the source for his symmetry group irrelevance (Mordred, not Wikipedia)
Together with ignorance about what he highlights in that article

SO(4) is doubly covered by SU(2) × SU(2) = S3 × S3.

The words "doubly covered" do not spell "reducible" . What the phrase means is found by clicking on the link in the article and my quote (which is why posting an image is rather stupid).

 

[Reality Check]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv

Yes - that is the not peer reviewed, not a scientific journal ArXiv. Previous to the endorsement system (which is not peer review or even review of every paper if you bothered to learn about it), it was easy for crank papers to be uploaded. I have read a few really deluded preprints and even a deluded paper or 2.

The arXiv endorsement system

Since January 17, 2004 arXiv has required that users be endorsed before submitting their first paper to a category or subject class.
Why does arXiv require endorsement?

arXiv is distinct from the web as a whole, because arXiv contains exclusively scientific content. The endorsement system verifies that arXiv contributors belong to the scientific community in a fair and sustainable way that can scale with arXiv's future growth.
arXiv is an openly accessible, moderated repository for scholarly papers in specific scientific disciplines. Material submitted to arXiv is expected to be of interest, relevance, and value to those disciplines. Endorsement is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have papers accepted in arXiv; arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission.

(my highlight added)
This is an endorsement of the authors, not of the content of any preprint. Someone can be endorsed and never, ever submit a preprint !.

The real world fact remains:
18 October 2017: An irrelevant neurons and brain paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

18 October 2017: Confirms that his PDF lies about the source for his symmetry group irrelevance (Mordred, not Wikipedia)
Together with ignorance about what he highlights in that article

The words "doubly covered" do not spell "reducible" . What the phrase means is found by clicking on the link in the article and my quote (which is why posting an image is rather stupid).

I don't limit myself verbatim while researching some source.

So, although the Wikipedia snippet does not contain the word "reducible", its content may be used to express Mordred's presentation.

Your answer above was quite the disappointment.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Yes - that is the not peer reviewed, not a scientific journal ArXiv. Previous to the endorsement system (which is not peer review or even review of every paper if you bothered to learn about it), it was easy for crank papers to be uploaded. I have read a few really deluded preprints and even a deluded paper or 2.

The arXiv endorsement system

(my highlight added)
This is an endorsement of the authors, not of the content of any preprint. Someone can be endorsed and never, ever submit a preprint !.
The real world fact remains:
18 October 2017: An irrelevant neurons and brain paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Irrelevant.


Footnote:
Let us look at an example, a paper by Deepmind, concerning deep q learning.

That paper describes one of the first approximations of artificial general intelligence; where one model can approximate various tasks (or games) without being re-engineered for each task.

Demis Hassabis, gives a nice description here.

For others, here is a brief overview of mine, showing why games are quite important.

This is typically the quality of work permitted on ArXiv.

 

[abaddon]

Irrelevant.


Footnote:
Let us look at an example, a paper by Deepmind, concerning deep q learning.

That paper describes one of the first approximations of artificial general intelligence; where one model can approximate various tasks (or games) without being re-engineered for each task.

Demis Hassabis, gives a nice description here.

For others, here is a brief overview of mine, showing why games are quite important.

This is typically the quality of work permitted on ArXiv.

Wow. The footnote is the important bit where the content should reside. The body-text is only a single word.

I have no idea where you learned that, but good grief, that is eye-watering.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Wow. The footnote is the important bit where the content should reside. The body-text is only a single word.

I have no idea where you learned that, but good grief, that is eye-watering.

Apart from your grammar notation, of which others alike have just been painstakingly removed by mods, do you have anything to contribute w.r.t. to the OP?