Re: Finding useful functions- part 1
From: Wolf Kirchmeir (wwolfkir_at_sympatico.ca)
Date: 10/29/04
- Next message: Paul Bramscher: "Re: Free Will FWIW"
- Previous message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism"
- In reply to: Stargazer: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 12:38:07 -0400
Stargazer wrote:
> Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>
>>Stargazer wrote:
>>
>>>Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Stargazer wrote:
>>
>>[snip a number oif clear answers to my questions - thanks. I think.
>>:-)]
>>
>>>*SG*
>>
>>Your answers clear up some misconceptions on my part, but they also
>> show terminological obfuscation on the part of artificial neural
>>network researchers.
>>
>>Throughout your explanation, the term "signal" is used ambiguously. It
>>sometimes seems to apply to an input to a single neuron, and sometimes
>>to a collection of inputs to a network of neurons. IMO this is
>>confusing. Very. It's a hierarchy error, which always cause trouble.
>
>
> I agree that it is confusing. But it is not a hierarchy error, it
> reflects the common understanding by a group of researchers. Such
> peculiar meaning of words is also commonplace in many specia
[snip useful comments that follow]
It's still a hierarchy error, IMO. Consider that the effect of the
signal is different when it's an simple input to a neuron (essentially,
the neuron will fire or it won't, although in some cases the neuron's
response to subsequent signals is changed). When it's a complex multiple
input to a NN (it could have any of a range of effects, from null to a
change in output in response to a repetition of the signal to a change
in output to a different signal etc etc.) It may make sense to speak of
the "quality" (mathematically defined) of an complex signal, but not of
a simple signal, which is of one kind or another. And so on.
But whether it's a hierarchy error or not, the term is ambiguous and
hence likely to cause errors. That's enough to require a refinement in
terminology IMO. Terminology should express or label concepts accurately
and unambiguously.
- Next message: Paul Bramscher: "Re: Free Will FWIW"
- Previous message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Bareknuckles Behaviorism"
- In reply to: Stargazer: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Next in thread: David Longley: "Re: Finding useful functions- part 1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
