Re: Finding useful functions- part 1

From: Stephen Harris (cyberguard1048-usenet_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 01:50:50 GMT

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1GSfd.11528$Qs6.1183648@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Stephen Harris wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> A reference to standard usage in the literature:
>> http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/Psychology/becker/papers/beckerzemelHBTNN2ndEd.pdf
>>
>> "Unsupervised learning algorithms can be distinguished by the absence of
>> any
>> supervisory feedback from the external environment. Often, however, there
>> is
>> an implicit _internally-derived_ training signal. This training signal is
>> based on
>> some measure of the quality of the network's internal representation. The
>> main
>> problem in unsupervised learning research is to formulate a performance
>> measure
>> or cost function for the learning, to generate this internal supervisory
>> signal. The cost function is also known as the objective function, since
>> it sets the objective for the learning process. ..."
>>
>>
>
> OK, but I find this conceptually fuzzy.
>
> Why should any external feedback be "supervised"? Is there a difference
> between supervised and unsupervised external feedback?
>

I saw you in another post criticize the non-standard usage of terms in
different fields. How could it be otherwise?

Even in the same field terms are not always used synonymously.
There is no Grand Adjudicator who reads all papers, understands all papers,
decides which is the best term for all the fields to employ, decides when
"coined" words are inappropriate and then has the authority to prevent
publication in all cases where the GA deems the terminology does
not serve the common weal of conceptual clarity.

Watch out for Turing's usage of "computer" because he means a human.

Quantcast