This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by Nature on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 7 errors.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I looked on here by chance. The architecture section which should be a key element has 2 confused and unsourced paragraphs now. And that seems to be symptomatic - you can not (and I mean really not) discuss architecture unless you separate the artificial man-made networks from the natural/biological items. So the article really needs to split anyway. Then architecture can be discussed. This article is not on my edit path, so I will not tag it or modify it, but if you people separate it out into artificial vs natural, it may have some hope of improving. But as is, it does not have a prayer and is a liability for the reader rather than an asset. History2007 (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you meant Biological_neural_network - but I agree - this is all quite confusing. I think there should be one article addressing artificial neural networks, and in that article have a section on the simulation or study of biological neural networks using the techniques of artificial neural networks. Then, keep the biological neural network article as is and keep good links between the two. Then this page can go away and just become a disambiguation page. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I raised the issue on Wikiproject disambiguation, but no consensus seems likely... History2007 (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
It's on this talk page that's important - disambig will accept most of the possible outcomes...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
So, you have my support to do it... So just do it if you like. I will stop watching however... History2007 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Anyway, I touched it up a little, but still many errors there. The last one I just fixed confused how the Von Neuman model works, did not mention memory separation from processors and how that makes it different, etc. Overall the statements in this article can just generate tears really... History2007 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This article discusses ANNs, mostly. It makes comparisons with biological NNs, but for the most part, it's duplicate. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Support merge. Arguably, artificial networks and natural ones are entirely different things, but the study of natural ones is so closely tied up with studying artificial models that I think a merge (with this page as the target) makes sense for now. In the future, research developments may justify re-splitting them, but that's WP:CRYSTAL. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment – It looks like a lot of work to either merge these or to separate the content more sensibly. I would support either way, if someone is agreeing to take it on and do a good job of it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose merger There are at least three different kinds of things under the topic of neural networks: (1) biological networks of neurons and associated cell types, (2) computational approximations to biological neural networks (Hodgkin-Huxley, integrate and fire, etc.), and (3) the artificial neural networks used in machine learning that bear little relation to biological networks (radial basis function NNs, multilayer perceptrons, Gaussian processes, etc.) A fourth related category might be the connectionist models used in psychology and philosophy. Somewhere on WP, we need to be able to classify and explain the differences among these systems. I'd be concerned that a merger would give undue weight to the ANNs and the other types would get lost in ANN discussion. I agree with Dicklyon that it would be a lot of work to merge these well. To me it would make more sense to move most of the ANN stuff from Neural network to Artificial neural network and make Neural network more of a WP:DABCONCEPT page that classifies and disambiguates the types of neural networks. --Mark viking (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that idea about a DAB page would work, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Alright, agreed. I did already move a lot of ANN material to the artificial neural network page, removing it here. A DABCONCEPT page seems fine. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Support merge - A merge makes sense. APerson (talk!) 16:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose – I agree with Dicklyon and Mark. Above all, ANN and NN should not be treated as redundant concepts. Mark's suggestion to make NN a DABCONCEPT page is a good idea. Kind regards, 㓟 (talk) 22:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - While ANN derives from the inspiration of Biological NN, it is not necessarily an attempt to model NN. ANN is primarily a mathematical model, and the model can be implemented in computer hardware and software, without any attempt to reproduce or mimic a NN. Further, ongoing research in the NN and ANN fields is likely to progress in very different areas of research. Jimperrywebcs (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I like your idea of a page on Neural network (computer), or perhaps better Neural network (digital). However, I disagree with relegating the biological side of the topic to Neuron, which is principally about individual cells. Perhaps, instead, there should be a dedicated page called Neural network (biological). We might be able to get by with those two pages, each with a hatnote to serve for DAB, and in that case, we might not need a DAB page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Searching keywords 'neural networks computer' in Google returns more results than 'neural networks digital'. Neural network (computer) is more common.
Whatever else, it should not be Neuron, which, by definition, is not about networks. Neural coding would be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Since there was such a mess and I was bold and redirected NN to the NN Dab. Almost all the content of NN was already in ANN so it didn't make any sense to have both. We can rename ANN and BNN to "Neural Network (Biology)" and "Neural Network (Computer Science)" if you want. We can make NN a dab instead of having Neural network (disambiguation).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
"Deep learning" is little more than a fad term for the current generation of neural nets, and this page describes neural net technology almost exclusively. The page neural network could do with an update from the more recent and better-written material on this page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)