Merged Artificial Intelligence Research: Supermathematics and Physics

[fuelair]

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.

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.)[/QUOTE]

Well noted and reported!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

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?

We have. We have noted errors, funny claims and other related pointlessness.

Our job is pretty much covered!!!!

 

[Belz...]

What are "bionary" circuits?

Nice dodge.

You're in no position to call others on their mangling of English.

 

[fuelair]

Evidently, my "issue" is that I understand the English language better than you do.

Don't we all!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Just in case: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~bengioy/yoshua_en/index.html

 

[Reality Check]

A fantasy about a Wikipedia article that says nothing about reducibility

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

19 October 2017: A fantasy about a Wikipedia article that says nothing about the reducibility of orthogonal groups.

There is no "Mordred's presentation". There is an unsupported assertion in 1 sentence written in a PM from Mordred. That sentence was "Yes it is very viable, any SO group is reducible to SU most commonly SU(2)"'. The unsupported assertion seems unrelated to your "traverse field super Hamiltonian" question.

 

[Reality Check]

Thinks that ArXiv uploads need some kind of permission!

Irrelevant. ...This is typically the quality of work permitted on ArXiv

Relevant to addressing and recording displays of ignorance.
Endorsement of an author is not peer review of a any papers. You need to acknowledge your mistake.
The arXiv endorsement system does not look at the contents of any papers. It is an endorsement of the authors.

Next: 19 October 2017: Thinks that ArXiv uploads need some kind of permission!

arXiv has a goal of having any uploaded preprint available within a short time (24 hours?) of the upload. Most uploads appear automatically. For the few preprints the system cannot handle a moderation team does look at the content to determine where to put the preprint. The team can also reject an inappropriate submission (e.g. not in a subject covered by arXiv ) subject to appeal.
The arXiv moderation system

The preprint you link to is a workshop presentation, not a published, peer reviewed paper.

 

[Reality Check]

That sentence was "Yes it is very viable, any SO group is reducible to SU most commonly SU(2)"'.

Let us look at some orthogonal group examples

SO(1) = {1}
SO(2) is S¹SO(3) is RP3 [2]

SO(1) = {1}, the trivial group.
SU(1) = {1}, the trivial group.
Thus (trivially ) SO(1) reduces to SU(1).

SO(2) is S¹ (a circle). It is the group of 2×2 real orthogonal matrices.
SU(2) is the group of 2×2 complex unitary matrices.
We cannot reduce real numbers to complex numbers.

SO(3) "is the group of all rotations about the origin of three-dimensional Euclidean space R3 under the operation of composition".
SU(3) is the group of 3×3 complex unitary matrices.
We cannot reduce real numbers to complex numbers.

SO have real number elements. SU have complex number elements. For reasonable definitions of reduce, SO cannot be reduced to SU. The opposite is viable, e.g. maybe under a projection from the complex numbers to real numbers. We will have to ask a mathematician.

It looks like Mordred swapped the groups. Mordred also needed to be more exact about what they mean by "reducible". N.B. there are orthogonal groups over complex numbers but they are SO(n, C).

 

[MikeG]

We get three months relief from PGJ's nonsense.

 

[Octavo]

Alpha Go gets smashed 100-0 by Alpha Go Zero - with half the compute power.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/...phago_software_doesnt_need_human_data_to_win/

 

[halleyscomet]

We get three months relief from PGJ's nonsense.

Gee, what could he have POSSIBLY done?

Back on topic, is there anything in the ideas he’s articulated that seem testable, and if so, is there some fundamental issue to keep them from being tested in a grid computing environment?

That’s the thing that keeps sticking in my craw about his ideas, that he just dismisses grid computing out of hand without any indication he’s seriously researched it as an option. He doesn’t even seem to really understand what grid computing is. That alone is enough to make me think his entire online persona is attention seeking and not science minded.

 

[MikeG]

Gee, what could he have POSSIBLY done?.........

Well now he has tried to open a sock account and been banned. However, that shouldn't stop us dissecting his guff for the next few weeks and finding more and more holes in it.

 

[halleyscomet]

Well now he has tried to open a sock account and been banned. However, that shouldn't stop us dissecting his guff for the next few weeks and finding more and more holes in it.

Weird. That’s the second rude claimant I’ve been interacting with who has gotten banned within the last few days.

Probably a coincidence. Two data points do not a trend make. It’s possible however I have a talent for antagonizing others to the point of them doing something stupid.

Nah, I’ve probably just gravitated to some of the higher-drama conversations, which are going to have a higher likelihood of generating banning offenses.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, not a very quick learner then after all.

 

[Thermal]

Well now he has tried to open a sock account and been banned. However, that shouldn't stop us dissecting his guff for the next few weeks and finding more and more holes in it.

I want to hear about the calculus he invented.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I want to hear about the calculus he invented.

Well, according to thesaurus.com, 'figures' is a synonym of calculus, and 'toss off' a synonym of invent.
I really don't want to know about the figures he tossed off...

 

[fuelair]

Weird. That’s the second rude claimant I’ve been interacting with who has gotten banned within the last few days.

Probably a coincidence. Two data points do not a trend make. It’s possible however I have a talent for antagonizing others to the point of them doing something stupid.

Nah, I’ve probably just gravitated to some of the higher-drama conversations, which are going to have a higher likelihood of generating banning offenses.

I like doing that myself. 2nd para of course!!

 

[Thermal]

Well, according to thesaurus.com, 'figures' is a synonym of calculus, and 'toss off' a synonym of invent.
I really don't want to know about the figures he tossed off...

I think I found what he claims is his wee bit of invention. Calls it his Trig Rule Collapser Set. My calc is covered in almost thirty years of rust, but as near as I can see he is claiming to have invented...plugging in values from memory instead of formally spelling them out. His links to a paper he claims to have clarified this on goes 404.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109559-calculus-shortcut-and-compression/

ETA: yeah, I remember doing U-substitutions to find an integral, sometimes a freaking page of them. He seems to be saying that you just slap 'em in from memory. Do I have this right?

ETA part the second: yes, I'm pretty sure he is just recognizing simplification on the fly and plugging in known integrals without formally showing the steps

 

[halleyscomet]

I think I found what he claims is his wee bit of invention. Calls it his Trig Rule Collapser Set. My calc is covered in almost thirty years of rust, but as near as I can see he is claiming to have invented...plugging in values from memory instead of formally spelling them out. His links to a paper he claims to have clarified this on goes 404.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/109559-calculus-shortcut-and-compression/

Not even the WayBack machine has it.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Seems you might be something of a slow learner, then, as you have continued to do that here.

Well, he seems to exist in a world of his own that is dictated by his own invented notions and definitions, I'd not be surprised if he saw nothing wrong in his actions on the other forums.