3 ms·

> Taylor expansions That’s not what I’m talking about. This is a basic analysis topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem https

• naasking 2y ago
  > That’s not what I’m talking about. This is a basic analysis topic: It's the same basic flaw: requiring continuous functions. Not all functions are continuous, therefore this is not sufficient. > And you’re still ignoring the cybernetics, and perceptrons movement I keep referring to which was more than 100 years ago, and informed by Turing. What about them? As long as they're universal, they can all simulate brains. Anything after Church and Turing is just window dressing. Notice how none of these new ideas claimed to change what could in principle be computed, only how much easier or more natural this paradigm might be for simulating or creating brains.
  • citizen_friend 2y ago
    This implies it works piecewise. That’s also true of neural nets lol. You have to keep adding more neurons to get the granularity of whatever your discontinuities are. It’s also a different reason than Taylor series which uses differentiability. You do not understand this subject. Please read before repeating this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_approximation_theo... > what about them Then you seem to have lost the subject of the thread.