From: mddeitch@socs.uts.edu.au (Mark Deitch) 
Subject: Re: Ignorance (was Re: Computing in Australia.)
Reply-To: mddeitch@socs.uts.edu.au
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
Date:  5 Nov 92 23:46:59 GMT

osborn@socs.uts.edu.au (Tom Osborn) writes:

 >
 >We can thus state the Theorem of the Ugly Duckling: "Insofar as we use
 >a finite set of predicates that are capable of distinguishing any two
 >objects considered, the number of predicated shared by any two such
 >objects is constant, independent of the choice of the two objects".
 >This theorem is true also if we limit the number of predicates of any 
 >given rank....
 >
 >"Any arbitrary two objects are equally similar". Thus, a swan and a duck, 
 >and two swans (insofar as distinguishable) are equally similar. This theorem 
 >is mathematically a very simple theorem, but it has a very profound meaning
 >for the study of pattern recognition. If we use the concept of distance D
 >instead of similarity, the situatiobn is the same; the distance between
 >a pair of objects is the same for any choice of the pair.
 >
 >			Satosi Watanabi, 1985, in "Pattern Recognition".
 >
 Another insane dickhead, who connected himself up to a power outlet, while
 smoking opium and invented a theorem. I am not for an instant saying that
 the theorem itself has no practical use. I am sure that there are many
 academics out there, who have defeated the laws of nature and obtained
 multiple orgasms over it. But seriously, how did people like George Boole
 or whatever he was called, get those ideas in his head about an Algebra involving just 2 numbers?
 He must have been totally off his face. The actual practical significance of his
 work was not even acknowledged until after he was dead. An interesting
 point that this raises is, Binary. So simple, yet so powerful. It is almost unfathomable
 to comprehend that todays most powerful supercomputers are still running
 on the basic notion of 0 and 1. Perhaps this can be applied somehow to the
 concept of the human mind?. If we can operate a system that actually recognises
 sound, can see, can control movement, then we have created almost half of
 the human sensory system using just complicated applications of 0's and 1's
 Surely the human system has a broader base than this. Perhaps a system that is
 based around an infinite set of electronic charges. Of course, the technology
 to detect such subtle variations in charge, probably does not exist yet. I do believe, however
 that if the `Psychology of the Computer' is going to advance, than it is going to
 require something more than just Binary as a base. WHERE ARE ALL THE 
 GEORGE BOOLE'S IN THE WORLD? How can a system that was invented so long ago, still be
 the most efficient basis, for such powerful machinery? Perhaps some more
 nerds should connect themselves up to power outlets and smoke opium?
 
 .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	     Mark Deitch           --          University of Technology, Sydney
       mddeitch@socs.uts.edu.au    --          Bachelor of Applied Science,
          One life to live.        --               Computing Sciences,
                                                       Undergraduate

Newsgroups: aus.flame