If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Proton Soup" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:29:45 GMT, "OmegaZero2003" wrote: BTW, as a PS to my other answer post, here are some linear systems. - those characterizable by linear algebra. there are lots of these! - Hamiltonian oscillators and like systems. (the direction field specifically) - continuous-time systems like electrical networks, many mechanical systems Only simple RLC electrical networks fall into this category. And even then, it's just a theoretical assumption over the useful operating range. Too much current or voltage or flux will flux up your circuit. Linear electrical networks only exist on paper. My original point to the OP on the topic was a retort to the statement that *all* systems are nonlinear. That is not true. - any discrete system with a transfer function whose input, response and output functions depend on one variable - any systems preserving homogeneity (output proportional to input) and superposition (a way of combining linear functions such that the result is a linear function) Even non-deterministic systems can be modeled using statistics for linear dynamics. But the main point to not be belabored is that there are linear systems on nature and manmade (1) Most systems *are* non-linear but some of those are characterizable using linear methods to some degree of accuracy; you did make something like this point. (1) Schwarz, Ralph J. and Friedland, Bernard, 1965, Linear Systems, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 521 pp. --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message ... Proton Soup wrote: "OmegaZero2003" wrote: BTW, as a PS to my other answer post, here are some linear systems. - those characterizable by linear algebra. there are lots of these! - Hamiltonian oscillators and like systems. (the direction field specifically) - continuous-time systems like electrical networks, many mechanical systems Only simple RLC electrical networks and their analogs in other domains fall into this category. And even then, it's just a theoretical assumption over the useful operating range. Too much current or voltage or flux will flux up your circuit. Linear electrical networks only exist on paper. Exactly. They're (essentially) linear in a linear range. Welcome to Tautology 101! Again, I have provided several examples of systems that are chraterizable as linear. Proton pointedd out one spcific one above. I provided several categories of linear systems. My original retort to your original sttement that *all* systems are non-linear stands: it is not true that all systems are non-linear. It is very easy to show how a hypothesis that begins: " All..." is false. I need only provide one counter example. -- -Wayne |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:26:26 GMT, "OmegaZero2003"
wrote: "Proton Soup" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:29:45 GMT, "OmegaZero2003" wrote: BTW, as a PS to my other answer post, here are some linear systems. - those characterizable by linear algebra. there are lots of these! - Hamiltonian oscillators and like systems. (the direction field specifically) - continuous-time systems like electrical networks, many mechanical systems Only simple RLC electrical networks fall into this category. And even then, it's just a theoretical assumption over the useful operating range. Too much current or voltage or flux will flux up your circuit. Linear electrical networks only exist on paper. My original point to the OP on the topic was a retort to the statement that *all* systems are nonlinear. That is not true. Then how about one example of a real physical system that is linear? I realize that something digital like a NOT gate may be linear, but it is still an abstraction. It's physical manifestation is something different. Linearity is just an idealization, a tool that we use. Even the mechanical systems mentioned are all nonlinear. A system using masses and dampers and springs can be pieced together to form mechanical analogues of RLC electrical circuits, but all those systems are only linear within a threshold. Sure, there are linear systems, but they're all in our heads. --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote... OmegaZero2003 wrote: I would not argue with Steve; he is onto something. He put it all together and formulated another view of reality consistent with certain other current views, yet enabling a look at complexity_from_simplicity that has heretofore not been appreciated in its scope of applicability. That's not clear to me. Have you read his book? I haven't read it, but have discussed this at length with someone who has read it, attended Wolfram's lectures, and discussed it with Wolfram. Nonlinearity can arise in many different forms. Aside from quadratic/cubic forms, which you might call "local" nonlinearities (because the "slope" of the interaction varies locally), It does not ahve to; the form and whether it is local or non-local are orthogonal. Heh: we're definitely talking past each other. My point is that there are linear systems. Yawn. This makes little sense. It is the complexity of a system that determines the breadth and depth of a system_state tree. Again, we're talking past each other. A complex system, or a dynamical system need not exhibit emergent phenomena. The systems that do exhibt emergent phenomena however, are usually complex dynamical sytems. I don't know if I've mentioned this in this thread, but the term "emergent" is not accepted by the bulk of NLD researchers (mathematicians or physicists). That something varies smoothly (not descrete steps I presume you mean), does not mean it does not have distinguisable states!!!!!! That is what intergation and differentiation are all about. Once again, we're talking past one another. Or VV!! Chaotic systems far from equilibrium. See Prigogine. Yeah, yeah. Can you point me to a ref. where you are reading/getting this relationship from? Sorry, I just made it up (but it happens to be true). Well - I think it is mostly true as I said. But my original point is that there are linear systems (hell - that is what LP is for!!). But - in that case... I think we should have been discussing the (a)/(b) dichotomy I mentioned above. Whether nature is discontinuoous or continuous. Ack! True, but I'm referring to much simpler ensembles of neurons. The computational capability of a NN is directly traceable to the threshold and saturation characteristics of the neurons. Well -err - not necessarily. The computational capability of brain or any subset depends on how yu think it characterizes, or *represents* information!! But a tiny NN is very simple, and it's quite clear how it stores information. If the neuron activation function were linear, it would only be able to store y=Ax+b, which contains very little information. Right, and this is really important: beyond a narrow range, the cost of responding linearly to external stimuli would be too taxing to the organism. Consequently, the organism lets that mechanism saturate, and turns on a different one. Or goes crazy! (Becomes chaotic) See, I make a living working on systems that are chaotic, so I don't view them as crazy. For example, the human brain NEEDS to be chaotic to be functional. Limit cycles are the abnormal dynamics of brains (epilepsy, etc.). I don't see as strong a link as you do evidently. There are far more important aspects that affect robustness and effectiveness of a system than saturation and threshold. I wasn't trying to imply that threshold and saturation are fundamental to robustness of dynamics of nonlinear systems, but instead that it's fairly easy for self-organizing (e.g., biological) systems that have these characteristics to develop robust dynamics. Here is another thought. Man-made complex systems are engineered, usually, to clamp to a safe value(s), all those parameters that may compromise safety or efficiency/waste-control. This is a simple form of saturation. Yo can clamp well-before a saturation level! Clamping is functionally a sudden saturation. Yeesh, enough already! -- -Wayne |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
OmegaZero2003 wrote:
My original point to the OP on the topic was a retort to the statement that *all* systems are nonlinear. That is not true. Nonsense. The OP never said any such thing. 8-p -- -Wayne |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: BTW, as a PS to my other answer post, here are some linear systems. - those characterizable by linear algebra. there are lots of these! 'ang on there, when we refer to linearity in such systems, we're referring to linearity of the dynamics, i.e., x-dot = A * x + b 'ang on there yourself!!! Do you know WHAT characterizes a linear system mathematically? Do you know the difference between an additive versus a multiplicative factor? Well there is your answer! In case you have not understood - will will take it slowly at first. Atend: here is help for you: "The response of a [ linear ] system to a sum of inputs is the sum of the responses to each individual input separately. These two nice properties allow a whole range of tools to be applicable in designing linear systems and predicting their behavior. Some more examples of linear systems in real life: a) Frequency filters -- circuits which only pass low frequencies and reject high, or vice-versa. b) Delays are linear. Echos from faraway canyons are linear. Shout twice as loud, get an echo twice as loud. Two people shouting at the same time comes back as two people echoing at the same time. c) Many different kinds of economic systems -- looking at the apple juice production (output) vs. the apple crop yield, for example. d) Limiting cases of non-linear systems for small inputs: Even if the system's response may not satisfy the equation above exactly, it often will well enough for small enough inputs. In this case, even if the number of apples bought by consumers, say, is inversely proportional to the price of apples, you can still model small changes around a reference price with linear systems (but beware when the inputs get large!). (http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti...20020319233837. htm) Note that the last item (d) talks about linearization/signal decomposition/approximation_techniques of/for non-linear systems, which I am NOT talking about. We are talking about bona fide LINEAR systems fulfilling all the mathematical/theoretical properties that decades of science has determined qualifies a system as "Linear" *by definition*!!!! I am also not talking about trivial examples of what is a linear system in toto (including extreme), but is subclassed to non-interesting behavior (like an amp NOT in saturation mode). This omits simple algebraic behaviors (because x-dot = 0). - Hamiltonian oscillators and like systems. (the direction field specifically) Not of great interest in biological systems, except as a backdrop. We were not restricting the discussion to biological systems. My original retort to the OP's statement: "All systems are non-linear" was to say: That is not true. It is easy to falsify hypotheses of the form: "All...(x) are (y)" in the sense that only one counter-example need be provided. FYI, a special class of linear control systems known as singularly perturbed control systems, uses the Hamiltonian approach ( recursive) approach based on t exact pure-slow and pure-fast decoupling of optimal control problems. Another interesting special class of linear systems:: "Linear systems with non-rational transfer functions (In this project linear systems described by partial differential equations having non-rational transfer functions are studied. The aim of this project is to analyse the dynamic behaviour and properties of linear input-output systems with non-rational transfer functions (such as flexible robot arms and heat processes) in the frequensy domain. For some classes of such systems it is possible to develop the overall transfer function in analytical form by the transmission matrix method. The interaction between different parts of the system (including the way they are coupled to each other) can then be analysed. The transmission matrix method has been succesfully applied to multi-link flexible robot arms and to buckling of multi-segment columns. Another application concerns the stability of heat processes described by parabolic partial differential equations. Based on the transmission matrix method a Nyquist stability test was developed for sandwich-layered materials with linear inner heat source." (M. Vajta DISC Project 1999) for a linear system characterized using N first-order linear homogeneous differential equations with constant coefficient can be found at: (with a little more detailed math): http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath440/kmath440.htm I leave it to the reader to come up with only three biological systems that are so charaterized (this is an easy quiz to see if you understand what a linear system is). You can also look up sparse linear systems for funzies! - continuous-time systems like electrical networks, many mechanical systems Aside from the fact that linearity is an approximation in all such systems, they all have their nonlinear limits. The nonlinearity is whatever it is that keeps the systems operating in their linear range. - any discrete system with a transfer function whose input, response and output functions depend on one variable Huh? I think you have to learn the meaning of linear. Note that I am NOT talking about linearisation of non-linear systems (which seems to be talked about in this thread instead of the major contentions about what exists.)!!! I am not talking about signal decomposition to acheive a linear treatment (what you called piecewise). Here is some help. Note that he points out some examples in the text. "Signals, Linear Systems, and Convolution Professor David Heeger Characterizing the complete input-output properties of a system by exhaustive measurement is usually impossible. Instead, we must find some way of making a finite number of measurements that allow us to infer how the system will respond to other inputs that we have not yet measured. We can only do this for certain kinds of systems with certain properties. If we have the right kind of system, we can save a lot of time and energy by using the appropriate theory about the system's responsiveness. Linear systems theory is a good time-saving theory for linear systems which obey certain rules. Not all systems are linear, but many important ones are. When a system qualifies as a linear system, it is possible to use the responses to a small set of inputs to predict the response to any possible input. This can save the scientist enormous amounts of work, and makes it possible to characterize the system completely." Please note the statement: "Not all systems are linear, but many important ones are." And now for a little math: "Linear Systems A system or transform maps an input signal x(t) into an output signal y(t): y(t) = T[x(t)]; where T denotes the transform, a function from input signals to output signals. Systems come in a wide variety of types. One important class is known as linear systems. To see whether a system is linear, we need to test whether it obeys certain rules that all linear systems obey. The two basic tests of linearity are homogeneity and additivity. 4 Homogeneity. As we increase the strength of the input to a linear system, say we double it, then we predict that the output function will also be doubled. For example, if the current injected to a passive neural membrane is doubled, the resulting membrane potential fluctuations will double as well. This is called the scalar rule or sometimes the homogeneity of linear systems. Additivity. Suppose we we measure how the membrane potential fluctuates over time in response to a complicated time-series of injected current x1(t). Next, we present a second (different) complicated time-series x2(t). The second stimulus also generates fluctuations in the membrane potential which we measure and write down. Then, we present the sum of the two currents x1(t) + x2(t) and see what happens. Since the system is linear, the measured membrane potential fluctuations will be just the sum of the fluctuations to each of the two currents presented separately. Superposition. Systems that satisfy both homogeneity and additivity are considered to be linear systems. These two rules, taken together, are often referred to as the principle of superposition. Mathematically, the principle of superposition is expressed as: T( x1 + x2) = T(x1) + T(x2) (2) Homogeneity is a special case in which one of the signals is absent. Additivity is a special case in which = = 1. Shift-invariance. Suppose that we inject a pulse of current and measure the membrane potential fluctuations. Then we stimulate again with a similar pulse at a different point in time, and again we measure the membrane potential fluctuations. If we haven't damaged the membrane with the first impulse then we should expect that the response to the second pulse will be the same as the response to the first pulse. The only difference between them will be that the second pulse has occurred later in time, that is, it is shifted in time. When the responses to the identical stimulus presented shifted in time are the same, except for the corresponding shift in time, then we have a special kind of linear system called a shift-invariant linear system. Just as not all systems are linear, not all linear systems are shift-invariant. In mathematical language, a system T is shift-invariant if and only if: y(t) = T[x(t)] implies y(t " That is pretty much what I told the OP. Not ALL systems are non-linear. Period, End of story. QED and all that. Gabel, Robert A. and Roberts, Richard A., 1973, Signals and Linear Systems, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 415 pp. Gaskill, Jack D., 1978, Linear Systems, Fourier Transforms, and Optics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 554 pp. Lathi, B. P., 1992, Linear Systems and Signals, Carmichael, California: Berkeley-Cambridge Press, 656 pp. Lewis, Laurel J., Reynolds, Donald K., Bergseth, F. Robert, Alexandro, Jr., Frank J., 1969, Linear Systems Analysis, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 489 pp. Schwarz, Ralph J. and Friedland, Bernard, 1965, Linear Systems, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 521 pp The most common form of discrete systems is the iteration (strobing based on time or state) of a continuous system. A single-variable system would be of a form x-dot = f(x) Here, f can be (generally is) a nonlinear function of x, so the system will show nonlinear behavior, both continuously and discretely. - any systems preserving homogeneity (output proportional to input) and superposition (a way of combining linear functions such that the result is a linear function) In other words, linear systems. And there are lots of those! Do yourself a favor and merely google "linear system", read what you care to, then come back. I do not believe you do not get this. I can give you a good start: Linear System Theory and Design by Chi-Tsong Chen Read Chapter 2! Even non-deterministic systems can be modeled using statistics for linear dynamics. Not in their dynamics. You do not know what you are talking about. This is the classic engineer's mistake of characterizing in statistical terms what is not understood. When you delve into the NLD of such systems, you gain true insight into what makes them work. I can give examples. I have more examples in my head than you can provide. I worked on this for 20 years. But the main point to not be belabored is that there are linear systems on nature and manmade (1) Most systems *are* non-linear but some of those are characterizable using linear methods to some degree of accuracy; you did make something like this point. That is an approximation that people sometimes find useful to make. That doesn't make it so, especially when you take the system outside of the limited context in which you placed it for convenience. There are systems that are approximated as linear; that is called *linearization* and there is a gamut of math to deal with how to do that properly! But there are many systems that are inherently and demonstrably linear. -- -Wayne |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Proton Soup" wrote in message ... On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 20:26:26 GMT, "OmegaZero2003" wrote: "Proton Soup" wrote in message .. . On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:29:45 GMT, "OmegaZero2003" wrote: BTW, as a PS to my other answer post, here are some linear systems. - those characterizable by linear algebra. there are lots of these! - Hamiltonian oscillators and like systems. (the direction field specifically) - continuous-time systems like electrical networks, many mechanical systems Only simple RLC electrical networks fall into this category. And even then, it's just a theoretical assumption over the useful operating range. Too much current or voltage or flux will flux up your circuit. Linear electrical networks only exist on paper. My original point to the OP on the topic was a retort to the statement that *all* systems are nonlinear. That is not true. Then how about one example of a real physical system that is linear? I realize that something digital like a NOT gate may be linear, but it is still an abstraction. It's physical manifestation is something different. Linearity is just an idealization, a tool that we use. Even the mechanical systems mentioned are all nonlinear. A system using masses and dampers and springs can be pieced together to form mechanical analogues of RLC electrical circuits, but all those systems are only linear within a threshold. See my recent post. There are examples there. I think you have to understand the *mathematical definition* of a linear system to understand anything further. I provided that edication in that recent post. There are many systems that neet that definition. I am not talking about approximation techniques, subclassing a system into non-extreme behavior ranges, or linearization techniques. Sure, there are linear systems, but they're all in our heads. And sometimes not even there --- Proton Soup "If I drink water I will have to go to the bathroom and how can I use the bathroom when my people are in bondage?" -Saddam Hussein |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: My original point to the OP on the topic was a retort to the statement that *all* systems are nonlinear. That is not true. Nonsense. The OP never said any such thing. 8-p -- -Wayne Here is the context; I see you were pointing to biological systems. "Elzinator wrote: "OmegaZero2003" wrote... This is very similar to the issues facing cancer researchers. Three very different mechanisms/theories using separate processes all interacting to produce the endpoint. Biological systems are more complex than most realize: feedback loops, negative and positive regulators, redundant and overlapping pathways, etc. And, they're all nonlinear. That is, they are rife with thresholds and saturation effects. This makes them very, very (very) complicated, but has a lot to do with their effectiveness and robustness." See where you said they (biological) are all non-linear? There are biological systems that are linear. |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: "Wayne S. Hill" wrote... OmegaZero2003 wrote: I would not argue with Steve; he is onto something. He put it all together and formulated another view of reality consistent with certain other current views, yet enabling a look at complexity_from_simplicity that has heretofore not been appreciated in its scope of applicability. That's not clear to me. Have you read his book? I haven't read it, but have discussed this at length with someone who has read it, attended Wolfram's lectures, and discussed it with Wolfram. Nonlinearity can arise in many different forms. Aside from quadratic/cubic forms, which you might call "local" nonlinearities (because the "slope" of the interaction varies locally), It does not ahve to; the form and whether it is local or non-local are orthogonal. Heh: we're definitely talking past each other. My point is that there are linear systems. Yawn. This makes little sense. It is the complexity of a system that determines the breadth and depth of a system_state tree. Again, we're talking past each other. A complex system, or a dynamical system need not exhibit emergent phenomena. The systems that do exhibt emergent phenomena however, are usually complex dynamical sytems. I don't know if I've mentioned this in this thread, but the term "emergent" is not accepted by the bulk of NLD researchers (mathematicians or physicists). I would not agreee with that. it may (certainly is I will say) be the case that what is characterized *as* emergent* is not agreed to. There is a difference. That there is a definition/theory of emergence is indisputable. That such has been defined with mathematical characterizations of systems is also true. What usually is confused or, better, *conflated* by those whom you may be speaking, is "emergence" and "synergistic phenomena". That something varies smoothly (not descrete steps I presume you mean), does not mean it does not have distinguisable states!!!!!! That is what intergation and differentiation are all about. Once again, we're talking past one another. Or VV!! Chaotic systems far from equilibrium. See Prigogine. Yeah, yeah. Can you point me to a ref. where you are reading/getting this relationship from? Sorry, I just made it up (but it happens to be true). Well - I think it is mostly true as I said. But my original point is that there are linear systems (hell - that is what LP is for!!). But - in that case... I think we should have been discussing the (a)/(b) dichotomy I mentioned above. Whether nature is discontinuoous or continuous. Ack! True, but I'm referring to much simpler ensembles of neurons. The computational capability of a NN is directly traceable to the threshold and saturation characteristics of the neurons. Well -err - not necessarily. The computational capability of brain or any subset depends on how yu think it characterizes, or *represents* information!! But a tiny NN is very simple, and it's quite clear how it stores information. No is isn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It isn't clear at all how brain *represents* information. This is one of the biggest challenges facing neuroscience; how to span the gap between the psychological phenomena/overt behavior (verbal behavior etc.) and the NCCs (the neural correlates of consciousness)!!!!!!!!!!!! And all those silly extrapolations of how much the brain can compute if the brain can compute all day (based on such simplistic notions as you seem to think are veridical), have been shown to be silly! See Chalmer's page on such at: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/biblio.html BTW, I have read ALL of those papers. This is my life's work. If the neuron activation function were linear, it would only be able to store y=Ax+b, which contains very little information. Right, and this is really important: beyond a narrow range, the cost of responding linearly to external stimuli would be too taxing to the organism. Consequently, the organism lets that mechanism saturate, and turns on a different one. Or goes crazy! (Becomes chaotic) See, I make a living working on systems that are chaotic, so I don't view them as crazy. I was using the term loosely. For example, the human brain NEEDS to be chaotic to be functional. Limit cycles are the abnormal dynamics of brains (epilepsy, etc.). I agree. I don't see as strong a link as you do evidently. There are far more important aspects that affect robustness and effectiveness of a system than saturation and threshold. I wasn't trying to imply that threshold and saturation are fundamental to robustness of dynamics of nonlinear systems, but instead that it's fairly easy for self-organizing (e.g., biological) systems that have these characteristics to develop robust dynamics. Hmmm - OK - let me think about that. Here is another thought. Man-made complex systems are engineered, usually, to clamp to a safe value(s), all those parameters that may compromise safety or efficiency/waste-control. This is a simple form of saturation. Yo can clamp well-before a saturation level! Clamping is functionally a sudden saturation. No! Not theoretically or practically. Control systems are clamped at a setpoint that assures continued, NORMAL operation, in the vast majority of cases. Yeesh, enough already! -- -Wayne |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Low carb diets
"OmegaZero2003" wrote in message s.com... "Wayne S. Hill" wrote in message ... OmegaZero2003 wrote: "Wayne S. Hill" wrote... OmegaZero2003 wrote: I would not argue with Steve; he is onto something. He put it all together and formulated another view of reality consistent with certain other current views, yet enabling a look at complexity_from_simplicity that has heretofore not been appreciated in its scope of applicability. That's not clear to me. Have you read his book? I haven't read it, but have discussed this at length with someone who has read it, attended Wolfram's lectures, and discussed it with Wolfram. Nonlinearity can arise in many different forms. Aside from quadratic/cubic forms, which you might call "local" nonlinearities (because the "slope" of the interaction varies locally), It does not ahve to; the form and whether it is local or non-local are orthogonal. Heh: we're definitely talking past each other. My point is that there are linear systems. Yawn. This makes little sense. It is the complexity of a system that determines the breadth and depth of a system_state tree. Again, we're talking past each other. A complex system, or a dynamical system need not exhibit emergent phenomena. The systems that do exhibt emergent phenomena however, are usually complex dynamical sytems. I don't know if I've mentioned this in this thread, but the term "emergent" is not accepted by the bulk of NLD researchers (mathematicians or physicists). I would not agreee with that. it may (certainly is I will say) be the case that what is characterized *as* emergent* is not agreed to. There is a difference. That there is a definition/theory of emergence is indisputable. That such has been defined with mathematical characterizations of systems is also true. What usually is confused or, better, *conflated* by those whom you may be speaking, is "emergence" and "synergistic phenomena". That something varies smoothly (not descrete steps I presume you mean), does not mean it does not have distinguisable states!!!!!! That is what intergation and differentiation are all about. Once again, we're talking past one another. Or VV!! Chaotic systems far from equilibrium. See Prigogine. Yeah, yeah. Can you point me to a ref. where you are reading/getting this relationship from? Sorry, I just made it up (but it happens to be true). Well - I think it is mostly true as I said. But my original point is that there are linear systems (hell - that is what LP is for!!). But - in that case... I think we should have been discussing the (a)/(b) dichotomy I mentioned above. Whether nature is discontinuoous or continuous. Ack! True, but I'm referring to much simpler ensembles of neurons. The computational capability of a NN is directly traceable to the threshold and saturation characteristics of the neurons. Well -err - not necessarily. The computational capability of brain or any subset depends on how yu think it characterizes, or *represents* information!! But a tiny NN is very simple, and it's quite clear how it stores information. No is isn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It isn't clear at all how brain *represents* information. This is one of the biggest challenges facing neuroscience; how to span the gap between the psychological phenomena/overt behavior (verbal behavior etc.) and the NCCs (the neural correlates of consciousness)!!!!!!!!!!!! And all those silly extrapolations of how much the brain can compute if the brain can compute all day (based on such simplistic notions as you seem to think are veridical), have been shown to be silly! See Chalmer's page on such at: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/biblio.html BTW, I have read ALL of those papers. This is my life's work. Since I know you are not gonna wade through 2000 papers, here is the part that pertains: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/biblio/4.html#4.2 What is key is *how* the brain represents information and that is a subject of *intense* debate and research!!! If the neuron activation function were linear, it would only be able to store y=Ax+b, which contains very little information. Right, and this is really important: beyond a narrow range, the cost of responding linearly to external stimuli would be too taxing to the organism. Consequently, the organism lets that mechanism saturate, and turns on a different one. Or goes crazy! (Becomes chaotic) See, I make a living working on systems that are chaotic, so I don't view them as crazy. I was using the term loosely. For example, the human brain NEEDS to be chaotic to be functional. Limit cycles are the abnormal dynamics of brains (epilepsy, etc.). I agree. I don't see as strong a link as you do evidently. There are far more important aspects that affect robustness and effectiveness of a system than saturation and threshold. I wasn't trying to imply that threshold and saturation are fundamental to robustness of dynamics of nonlinear systems, but instead that it's fairly easy for self-organizing (e.g., biological) systems that have these characteristics to develop robust dynamics. Hmmm - OK - let me think about that. Here is another thought. Man-made complex systems are engineered, usually, to clamp to a safe value(s), all those parameters that may compromise safety or efficiency/waste-control. This is a simple form of saturation. Yo can clamp well-before a saturation level! Clamping is functionally a sudden saturation. No! Not theoretically or practically. Control systems are clamped at a setpoint that assures continued, NORMAL operation, in the vast majority of cases. Yeesh, enough already! -- -Wayne |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Latest "Net Carb" Scam? | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | June 26th, 2004 07:00 PM |
Article: The TRUTH About Low Carb Diets by Keith Klein | Steve | General Discussion | 24 | June 7th, 2004 09:05 PM |
Why Reduced Carb Diets Work For Most People:A Theory | John | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 14 | March 30th, 2004 05:32 AM |
Low Carb intelligence vs. low carb STUPIDITY | Steven C. \(Doktersteve\) | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | February 5th, 2004 12:12 PM |
low carb fad diets do work in the short-term | rob | Weightwatchers | 3 | October 19th, 2003 02:58 AM |