# Wrong

June 15 2004 at 4:26 PM
Moderator

Response to Right

When I said "Wrong" I meant about
{
>You mean: "What is the process by which you identify the
>Fibonacci sequence?"
>
>(Not: "how the heck do you get 13 as the next number?")
>
>Right?
}
(I understand it all now so I was just assuring that you knew why I said you were wrong.)

>I look forward to seeing your program, but I think you may be underestimating
>the possibilities for different types of sequence-producing rules.
>Creating a program that could catch stuff like that -- without being specifically
>told in advance to look for it -- might be possible; then again, it might not.
>It certainly wouldn't be 'simple'.

I disagree, on the grounds that I have explained in my previous post.
>"Without being specifically told in advance to look for it"
As I said before, how else would one do this? When you see a number sequence,
chances are that the first thing you think of is "do you add, subtract, multiply,
divide, use powers, factorials, primes, Fibonacci's series, ......................"
This is because you brain has already connected the idea of a sequence of
numbers to these things. If the program didn't, how can you expect it to figure it out.

I'm going to post my "SIMPLE sequence solver" in reply to this post.
Like it says, the input is FAR from idiot-proof, so it is easy to screw up.
If it says the next number is -32767 then it means IT can't determine it.

>The thread opened with the questions:
>"What element(s) are required for natural intelligence?" and
>"What are your thoughts on how intelligence works or is born to grow?"

I suppose I'll have to give you that. I guess I kind of side-stepped from the
original discussion. I also then suppose that my point is that you cannot
make a program solve sequences through "natural intelligence" and still
keep it even slightly simple. I'm saying that to do what you are asking, it
would require sensory devices, and many years to learn before it could
do something so simple the way you mean. Just like we do.

The One and Only PhyloGenesis

 Respond to this message
Responses