Talk:Jürgen Schmidhuber/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who am I?

Am I in a phone directory, white pages or a whoIsWho? Say who you are and I will tell you. Paul Beardsell 07:10, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Brain Power Query

Mr Schmidhuber contends that by the time he retires he will be able to afford to buy a computer that contains more computing power than his brain, though he doesn't indicate whether he expects to have contracted Alzheimer's by that time. Is there a measure of computing power that equates to a measure of brain power? He makes a stab at it at http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/raw.html, but I'm not sure he's right. I don't have a floating point processor in my brain and still use my fingers for counting. What ought to be possible to calculate is whether the amount of power consumed by the brain equates to the amount of power used by a computer. The measure is watts. I'm particularly interested in whether the human brain has a hibernate mode (like some laptops), i.e. in whether the brain's sugar consumption - which I gather is considerable in relation to the rest of the human body - depends on the quantity, quality or nature of thought. Just think, we could market the Wikipedia diet! Any thoughts (Paul especially)? To introduce myself, I am an erstwhile colleague of Paul Beardsell. (And apologies if my irreverent posting has nothing to to with the rest of the discussion on this page.) Stan 19:40, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, Matthew, I have lost a little weight recently. Usable power isn't only Watts consumed. It depends on efficiency, essentially the difference in temperature, also. Presumably that's why keeping a cool head is considered good, and being hot-headed bad.

I find myself a little bit in the position of the little boy in the Emperor without any Clothes story. At first I did not rudely shout out (like the little boy) but whispered by e-mail to the emperor that I thought his fly was down. But I am pretty confident I can construct the necessary counterexample: I'm just working it through again. I am trying to do it without resorting to the psuedo-Maths in the paper. I mean, <curly-italic-capital-E> isn't even defined. Not that this bothers Newbie. Maybe it is a widely understood term. But Cantor is mentioned needlessly, so why bother defining terms? Paul Beardsell 04:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents overview

Stan's Brain Power Query has a fun comment on Alzheimer and Schmidhuber's comparison of human brains and computers. Kosebamse is not satisfied with a cryptic four sentence summary of Schmidhuber's recent preprint on the Godel machine. The rest of the discussion so far is mostly a rather redundant exchange between Paul and Newbie. Paul first claimed he found an essential flaw in the Godel machine, mentioning real numbers and Cantor and other things without going into details. Newbie thinks he fully understands the Godel machine, and says that it is theoretically sound and that the non-computability of certain real numbers is not a problem in this context, and repeatedly challenged Paul to be more specific. Paul is annoyed that Newbie refuses to reveal his true indentity, but toned down his claims a bit, although he says he is still trying to work on a counterexample for Theorem 2.1. The entire page is a bit of a mess; several postings do not appear in chronological order, so one has to check the history information to figure out who said what when. Newbie 21:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have done what is possible to arrange Talk entries chronological, based on first appearing entry in each section. Le Prof 165.20.114.249 (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Godel/Goedel/Go-doubledot-del Machine

Wot got deleted

Moved from the article:

The machine essentially is a traditional computer whose initial software includes a systematic generator of proofs and programs. It also includes axioms describing hardware and initial software and some formal performance measure. Some generated software-rewriting program is executed provided the theorem prover also generated a proof that this rewrite will improve the machine's performance. It is easy to see that such rewrites cannot correspond to local minima - they must be globally optimal.

This looks a little incomprehensible. Could somebody please explain this for the laypeople? Kosebamse 15:01, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Schmidhuber's home page

This whole article is a copy from Juergen Schmidhuber's home page. Without mention of any express permission. That is without question. Questionable is my opinion that Goedelman is Juergen Schmidhuber. I have good reason to believe that the Goedel Machine referenced is without good foundation. Certainly the paper is not hard science as I understand it. It qualifies as speculation only. Interestingly someone else has recently removed the Goedel Machine article for copyright violation. Which is a pity as I was going to post correspondence between Schmidhuber and me on its Talk page. Maybe I should do so here. Paul Beardsell 15:12, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In Theory, at least

I am a theoretical computer scientist. I read the Godel machine paper several times and could not find any serious flaw. I think it is rather exciting. The moved quote above is too compact though. Newbie 20:05, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please expand the quote so that it is understandable. Paul Beardsell 04:24, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Non-Turing machine necessary?

Please explain the paragraph in italics above. Its all gobbledygook to me (and I know some computer science). I suggest you start with the sentence It is easy to see... Then I intend to quiz you about the assertion in the paper that a non-Turing machine will be necessary to get the Goedel Machine up and running but that it can all be simulated on a PC. You did read that bit? Paul Beardsell 22:47, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disappointedly Riled

For the record, I too find the idea of the Goedel Machine exciting. It was the profound disappointment I experienced upon reading the paper that has got me riled up. And, as I am a suspicious kind of guy, were Newbie to care to identify himself I would be more inclined to give his views the weight they might deserve but which, as this is his one and only posting to Wikipedia so far... Paul Beardsell 08:43, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No non-Turing machine necessary

My weight (if any) does not matter; the paper's content does. It does not say a non-Turing machine is necessary. That would be totally against its spirit. On page 5 it even has a paragraph on a Turing machine as an example hardware. It just says you don't need a universal Turing machine. You may instead use a more limited finite state automaton such as a PC. The important thing is that its software contains axioms describing the hardware, including storage limitations. I guess the easy to see refers to the 1 paragraph proof of Theorem 2.1. Newbie 20:21, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For those who would like to have a look themselves: Schmidhuber's paper "Easy to see". Rubbish. Paul Beardsell 07:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I deny that Theorem 2.1 is proved in Schmidhuber's paper. I think a counterexample is trivial. Paul Beardsell 08:33, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then why don't you give it? Newbie 19:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I could do so and do not. Why not? You could identify yourself but do not. Why not? Paul Beardsell 03:01, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That's like justifying your failure to deliver the counterexample by saying "You could dance on the table but do not. Why not?" Because it's not relevant to the present discussion. The only thing that counts are the facts. Where are your facts? Newbie 19:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is similar but not the same. Had I criticised a dance, you had defended it saying you were a qualified dancer, but refused to demonstrate any dance, then I could ask your name to find out if you are indeed a dancer. Here you say you are a theoretical computer scientist, you assert that a computer science paper is good science (having read it carefully several times), you refuse to enter into computer science argument, you say I should back up my claims. Well, who to? To someone who won't understand my argument? To someone who, if he is shown to be wrong, has lost nothing? No. Here I am, readily identifiable putting my possibly inconsiderable reputation on the line. Who are you? And how long have you worked at IDSEA? Paul Beardsell 01:23, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your response looks like a rather weak attempt to wriggle out of the mess you created for yourself - I am sure you see that there is a big difference here. You use this public site to claim Schmidhuber is wrong. Your potential audience is everybody, not just me. I don't believe your claim, and challenge you to back it up by facts. You ask, who to? Answer: to anybody who's reading this, of course, not just me. It does not matter whether I am a theoretical computer scientist (ignore this irrelevant claim), or whether I have worked at IDSEA or MIT or McDonald's drive thru. The only thing that counts are the facts; scientific claims are not settled by authority but by facts and logic. You write I refuse to enter a computer science argument, when in fact for the umpteenth time I ask you to make a precise statement or formal claim that we can discuss at all. As you say, you did put your reputation on the line. Now you have to deliver, or minimize loss of face by admitting you were wrong. Newbie 20:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But when I persuasively demonstrate a central flaw in the paper, by now I am quite keen that you should lose some face. You have stated that you have read the paper several times, you seem to have no problem understanding it, yet you decline to explain even the paragraph quoted here which you say is perfectly understandable but a little too dense. You assert the paper is good science. Indeed, you could find nothing wrong with it. It isn't only me who is exposed here. It is me, identified, and you, anonymous. By now you have started to make attacks on me, perhaps provoked. But you can just slink away, afterwards, when the Godel Machine is shown to be improperly argued in Schmidhuber's paper.

I'm working on my task. You explain the paragraph and say who you are. If you object to one you can still do the other, or so you say.

Paul Beardsell 00:02, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, you maneuvered yourself into this awkward and (as you point out) asymmetric position. Now you must either retreat or deliver your publicly announced counterexample, no matter whether I slink away or not. But rest assured: I'll be the first to admit I was wrong in case you can formally demonstrate an essential flaw in Schmidhuber's reasoning. Although in that case you won't need my applause to improve your general standing; I am sure you'll get the attention of others as well. Given the nature of your previous statements, however, I am afraid this case is quite unlikely. Nevertheless, after all this rather fruitless exchange so far, I am now actually playing with the thought of following your request for more explanation, by writing a full Godel machine entry for Wikipedia. But don't wait for it, continue working on your counterexample! Newbie 20:43, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Real Numbers

Newbie, as you claim to be a theoretical computer scientist, you will know that a Turing Machine cannot cope with the set of Real numbers. Schmidhuber's paper and his "easy to see" theorem makes use of the set of Real numbers. What say you? Paul Beardsell 07:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I ask: Is that your counterexample announced above? First you claim the paper says a non-Turing machine is necessary. Obviously not true. Then you make a vague statement about Turing machines and real numbers (possibly referring to the fact that most real numbers are incomputable?). You seem to suggest this somehow exhibits a flaw in Theorem 2.1 (if you don't want to download the entire pdf see http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/gmweb3/node10.html ). But you don't say why. What do you mean? Try to be precise. Newbie 19:40, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, that is not my counterexample. Which is one of the reasons it is in a separate section. Here we have a paper that goes to the trouble of telling us it knows about Cantor's "trick" used by Godel but never mentions Cantor again, that goes to the trouble of letting us know some details of the Turing machine which are not required elsewhere in the paper, that goes to the trouble of doing many unnecessary things, as nothing but padding. Yet it uses the set of Real numbers without a care in the world, without a word of explanation as to why this might not matter. And it might not. But why not? Also pertinent: I reckon he need not have used the Real numbers at all! Why are you, as a theoretical computer scientist, not making that point? Paul Beardsell

Ok, where is your counterexample? You say it's in a separate section, but there is none. The rest of your reply also is vague and does not contribute anything to substantiating your claims. What exactly is your problem with the real numbers??? Newbie 19:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As I said, and you confirmed, not-computable. Therefore it is not helpful to use them in a proof which says something about Turing machines. At the least an explanation is required. So strike out the Cantor name-dropping, if there is a shortage of space, and do so. Paul Beardsell 01:15, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re-reading the above, I am now convinced that you don't fully understand the concept of a proof. A proof is a finite sequence of symbols. But it may talk about incomputable objects. For example, the theorem forall x in R: x=x+1-1 says something about incountably many real numbers, most of them incomputable. Nevertheless, this theorem can be derived from a few axioms within a finite number of steps. In particular, the proof is computable on a Turing machine (should be obvious to anybody with a computer science education). Since you never clearly formulated your criticism, I have to guess what kind of explanation you might consider useful, but in the light of your vague claims above, maybe this is it. Newbie 20:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Consciousness

What a happy result! As a by-product of the Godel Machine, Schmidhuber may have solved the Artificial Consciousness problem:

Its bootstrap mechanism is based on a simple idea. Its initial software or program p includes an axiomatic description of (possibly stochastic) environmental properties and of the Godel machine’s goals and means. 2nd para 1.2 Basic Principles.

This is just the starting point of the Godel machine!

Paul Beardsell 07:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gödel Machine at Scholarpedia

I read the rather bizarre old discussion above (made smaller headings), and found a text about the Gödel Machine at Scholarpedia: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Universal_search Why not simply use this? I cut and paste:

"The Gödel Machine (Schmidhuber, 2006) is a general paradigm for solving arbitrary problems, including optimization problems and reinforcement learning. Inspired by the work of Kurt Gödel, it is based on a set of axioms and a programming language for encoding and deriving formal proofs. The machine interacts with an environment, through a dedicated hardware and software system, and its aim is to maximize a reward over a possibly limited lifetime. The axioms include a detailed formal description of the machine's software and hardware, including both the components interacting with the environment and those dealing with the formal proofs, and a possibly partial description of the environment. The Gödel machine starts its interaction with the environment according to some initial program; in the meantime, a proof search algorithm, is used to find provably optimal modifications of the machine's software. In other words, a Gödel machine can rewrite any part of its software, but only after it can prove that the modification will increase the expected reward for the remaining lifetime: in this case, meta-learning can influence any aspect of the machine's behavior, including the proof search itself, by rewriting the code controlling it. (Schmidhuber, 2006) also describes example instantiations of a Gödel Machine, in which the initial proof search algorithms are variants of universal search and OOPS, respectively."

The Scholarpedia article also has additional references. The biography is rather long - instead of pasting this here, better use it to start a new Wikipedia article? Fleabox (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Updates / Corrections

One should mention that he is also professor of cognitive robotics at TU Munich. Should have been inserted more than a year ago!

70.133.182.36 (apparently some SBC address in the US) edited the paragraph ending: This work on digital physics also led to limit-computable generalizations of algorithmic information and the concept of Super Omegas, which are limit-computable numbers that are even more random (in a certain sense) than Gregory Chaitin´s number of wisdom Omega.

To this 70.133.182.36 added: However, his theories are not without controversies, as no good computer implementations exists that would solidify his claims. Deep issues in machine learning and statistics, such as the bias variance dilemma, find insufficient treatment in Schmidhuber's writings.

This seems to be complete nonsense. Omega is an incomputable but enumerable number, and Schmidhuber's Super-Omega is not even enumerable, although it is limit-computable. All his Omega results are totally theoretical, and were published in a journal of theoretical computer science. Obviously this statement: no good computer implementations exists that would solidify his claims just indicates that 70.133.182.36 has no idea what he/she is talking about. The bias-variance dilemma also has nothing to do with this. Clearly, this should be removed. IDSIAupdate 09:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Juergen.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)