5 ms·

Well like I said I have no clue about any of the quantum mechanics side of it, I only know what sparsey does. But yes, one state is represented by an SDR (not j

Well like I said I have no clue about any of the quantum mechanics side of it, I only know what sparsey does. But yes, one state is represented by an SDR (not just and SDR but probabilities that have triggered an SDR), but not just that state all of the states leading up to the current represented state as well. Changing the representation changes not just what is currently represented but again an entire history and past representations. The code space he is talking about is utilizing time. So say I have 10 bits, and one of them is on, then I can represent 10 things. Now if my system also takes into account the code of the last time step I can represent 100 different things. 10 things in 10 different temporal contexts each, is 100 unique spatio-temporal states, and that goes on for however many layers you make. Hence exponential. Now I don't know what quantum supremacy is, but you brought it up it seems, he didn't. In general I know he thinks specialized hardware is not needed, and he has stated to me he thinks SDR or sparsey based systems tailored to do quantum computing problems could be a reality. So I think he might have thought you meant quantum supremacy in that sense. As he has told me. But I won't comment too much on that because he'll be responding tomorrow most likely. It's past midnight where he is at. But that's what I know Sparsey does, whether or not its better than quantum computing, I couldn't say. I've tried to understand what he is getting at but I just don't know enough quantum mechanics to come to any aha moments. What I do know is that the state representation in sparsey is massive and can represent many many high order concepts from low order concepts/features and find correlation between concepts both spatially and temporally. The math is very simple for that and not really hard to wrap your head around. You should start with the 2010 paper and 2014 paper of his if you are actually going to do the mental exercise you suggested. I don't know how you can claim someone is a quack if you don't even know the basic principles of the idea. As for his theory on the quantum part of it, I know he says its a developing theory of his and he just hasn't had the time to work on the idea like he has wanted, and he has always been 100% with me on that. Which is fair enough considering he has been working on Artificial General Intelligence and in that category alone there are so many things we haven't been able to try yet. Which is one of the reasons we are in the works of making this a profitable company rather than a research company. Getting more minds on the ideas. But I would wager that if you did more than 3 responses to him being a bit more clear on what you thought was wrong with the theory he probably could have given his thoughts to you about those specific concepts/critiques. But you really didn't say anything, at least in the responses I can see. But again I have practically no insight to your guys' full conversation so I'll let him clarify tomorrow. This will be my last response tonight, I have to be in a meeting in an hour with a colleague overseas then I'm crashing but I might respond tomorrow and Rinkus probably will as well.

lisper 7y ago
> I don't know what quantum supremacy is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy > whether or not its better than quantum computing, I couldn't say It doesn't have to be better, merely as good as would already be a major revolution in both math and physics. > I would wager that if you did more than 3 responses to him being a bit more clear on what you thought was wrong with the theory This was my last message to Rod: > I think you should try to run Shor’s algorithm, because if you succeed that will be a slam-dunk proof that your claims are correct. You will win a Fields medal, a Nobel prize in Physics, and become fabulously wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of Croesus. I think it’s much more likely that the attempt will reveal some flaw in your scheme, but either way, it seems like a worthwhile endeavor. Worst case, you will learn something. I really don't know how I could have been any clearer. This was his response: > Well, I don't really understand Shor's algorithm (from wikipedia). I'd have to study it. I never really have so far. But, I'm confident that my conjecture that QC reduces to the two properties I mentioned in last email is true. In other words: he doesn't understand one of the most basic and fundamental results in quantum computing, but he's confident that he has made a discovery that will revolutionize the field. If it quacks like a quack...
- roddyrink 7y ago
  Ron, you're hung up on Shor's algorithm. But you continue to avoid addressing my claim (above). Perhaps that's because you don't understand the fundamental difference between localist and distributed representations. In any case, your continued use of "quack" while you also continue to admit you don't understand the thing you're criticizing,...well, it's just pathetic. Anyway, let's stop. I don't really see any value in communicating with you further.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > you don't understand the fundamental difference between localist and distributed representations That's true, I don't, and I've never said otherwise. I do, however, understand information theory, quantum computation and quantum supremacy. So I don't know if you're a quack or not. What I do know is that your claim of having achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer is almost certainly false. I don't need to understand the details of your algorithm to know this, I only have to understand what "quantum supremacy" means and why it matters. I also know that I have looked at your site and read some of your papers and I can't make heads nor tails of them. It's possible that this is because I'm an idiot and I'm simply not capable of grasping the brilliant idea embodied in Sparsey, or that I just haven't put enough effort into it. Or it's possible that this is because it's all bullshit. I honestly don't know. But I do know one more thing, and that is that you're getting awfully defensive about all this. Why would you do that if you were confident in the merits of your position? What threat could a lazy idiot like me possibly pose in that situation?

lisper 7y ago

> I don't know what quantum supremacy is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy > whether or not its better than quantum computing, I couldn't say It doesn't have to be better, merely as good as would already be a major revolution in both math and physics. > I would wager that if you did more than 3 responses to him being a bit more clear on what you thought was wrong with the theory This was my last message to Rod: > I think you should try to run Shor’s algorithm, because if you succeed that will be a slam-dunk proof that your claims are correct. You will win a Fields medal, a Nobel prize in Physics, and become fabulously wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of Croesus. I think it’s much more likely that the attempt will reveal some flaw in your scheme, but either way, it seems like a worthwhile endeavor. Worst case, you will learn something. I really don't know how I could have been any clearer. This was his response: > Well, I don't really understand Shor's algorithm (from wikipedia). I'd have to study it. I never really have so far. But, I'm confident that my conjecture that QC reduces to the two properties I mentioned in last email is true. In other words: he doesn't understand one of the most basic and fundamental results in quantum computing, but he's confident that he has made a discovery that will revolutionize the field. If it quacks like a quack...

roddyrink 7y ago
Ron, you're hung up on Shor's algorithm. But you continue to avoid addressing my claim (above). Perhaps that's because you don't understand the fundamental difference between localist and distributed representations. In any case, your continued use of "quack" while you also continue to admit you don't understand the thing you're criticizing,...well, it's just pathetic. Anyway, let's stop. I don't really see any value in communicating with you further.
- lisper 7y ago
  > you don't understand the fundamental difference between localist and distributed representations That's true, I don't, and I've never said otherwise. I do, however, understand information theory, quantum computation and quantum supremacy. So I don't know if you're a quack or not. What I do know is that your claim of having achieved quantum supremacy on a classical computer is almost certainly false. I don't need to understand the details of your algorithm to know this, I only have to understand what "quantum supremacy" means and why it matters. I also know that I have looked at your site and read some of your papers and I can't make heads nor tails of them. It's possible that this is because I'm an idiot and I'm simply not capable of grasping the brilliant idea embodied in Sparsey, or that I just haven't put enough effort into it. Or it's possible that this is because it's all bullshit. I honestly don't know. But I do know one more thing, and that is that you're getting awfully defensive about all this. Why would you do that if you were confident in the merits of your position? What threat could a lazy idiot like me possibly pose in that situation?