Share this thread: 
#37
May1709, 01:05 PM

P: 490

ExactlySolved, I wonder how you feel about my objections to its handling of recurrence relations? Are these not valid concerns?
Is the absence of basic theorems and ideas (pigeonhole principle, etc.) acceptable? Is the lack of proofs, references, or explanations acceptable? And the argument that it should only be compared to other products is bogus. I could make a woodfired electric toothbrush that also acts as a universal remote for televisions and garage doors, and you could certainly judge its worth and merits in the context of what it is, without respect to other products. WA was released early, and it was hyped too much (if this is more or less what we can expect). What I see here isn't revolution, not even evolution, just more of the same tired publicity stunts that confuse people who know enough to have high expectations. 


#38
May1709, 01:11 PM

P: 490

"Systematic as in methodical, procedural. A network of facts which is connected by a welldefined method or procedure for moving between them. This is not a mathematical definition, so please don't pick it apart (philosophy teaches us that this is pointless i.e. you could not even define the word 'game' in such a way that I could not pick it apart), the only point is that you get the idea that the phrase was trying to convey."
How are the following things not systematic?  Theorems, principles, and axioms, laws, etc. from Mathematics, CS, Physics, Chemistry, etc...  Explanations of how to carry out common computational procedures by hand; or, if you will, listings of algorithms for common computational problems and their uses. This should be a computational knowledge engine, not a computational fact engine. There is a difference between a collection of random facts and knowledge. If you have knowledge of recurrence relations, you can not only solve them, but explain them and provide references and/or the steps used in solving them, including algorithms and other topics. 


#39
May1709, 01:15 PM

P: 2,828



#40
May1709, 01:17 PM

P: 2,828



#41
May1709, 01:25 PM

P: 1,636

The only way I found out about it is because of this thread. 


#42
May1709, 01:32 PM

P: 1,636

Ever since google dominated the market, a new approach is long over due. I believe that this just a first step toward something much bigger that's going to be brewing for decades. Google is working on "google squared" to catch up, so it's going to be interesting. 


#43
May1709, 01:33 PM

P: 2,828

Let us admit that the official launch is the 18th. Until then, full functionality is not supposed to be available. Let Wolfram admit that the expectations are as high as his initial claims led us hope. 


#44
May1709, 01:35 PM

P: 490

So references and proof are only needed for some facts, not all? I wish that worked in real life.



#45
May1709, 01:37 PM

P: 1,636




#46
May1709, 01:38 PM

P: 490

"Anybody with just a little knowledge and interest in artificial intelligence has heard about it at the very least since March."
At least March. I may be hallucinating, but I thought I knew that it was in the works as early as January of this year. "Let us admit that the official launch is the 18th. Until then, full functionality is not supposed to be available." This is fair, fine. I just don't know why they made it available early by a few days... oh well. "Let Wolfram admit that the expectations are as high as his initial claims led us hope." That's what I'm saying. The guy talks in such lofty terms that it's hard not to get excited about it. I can promise the moon and deliver a picture of the moon and some dubiouslooking moon rocks, but come on. 


#47
May1709, 01:42 PM

P: 490

"So you need a reference for 1 + 1?"
No, but then again, that's what calculators are for. There's a difference between 1+1=2 and solving the recurrence relations f(0)=0 f(n)=2f(floor(n/2))+n The former does not require any sophistication beyond counting on your fingers. The recurrence, while being comparatively simple and essential to the study of computer science (show me a CS major who does not know what this might represent or how to solve it, and I'll show you a CS major who's not worth his salt), should come along with some sort of explanation or source. There are steps involved in finding a solution (unless you already know the solution). 


#48
May1709, 01:49 PM

P: 1,636

One claim was that it could combine data from its database. I asked it to "convert 630 nm to THz." It figured out that's it's dealing with wavelength, and frequency and so found a link in its database and computed the conversion. 


#49
May1709, 02:03 PM

P: 78

Solve[k == Cos[k],k] http://www58.wolframalpha.com/input/...%5Bk%5D%2Ck%5D Or for a symbolic example I also used last night we have: Solve[E^(2 k) = Tanh[k],k] http://www58.wolframalpha.com/input/...%5Bk%5D%2Ck%5D It is possible to make the input more sloppy and still get these results, but why bother? RSolve[{f[n] == 2 f[n/2] + n, f[0] == 0}, f[n], n] I get a solution. If I input: RSolve[{f[n] == 2 f[Floor[n/2]] + n, f[0] == 0}, f[n], n] I get an error that I cannot bypass. In Mathematica I can say: RSolve[{f[n] == 2 f[If[OddQ[n], n/2, (n  1)/2]] + n, f[0] == 0}, f[n], n] and get a correct solution, where I have replaced the Floor function with an eqivalent If statement. I never work with RSolve or Floor, but I suspect the problem is with the evaluation sequence inolving Floor; however I just don't know. Either way, the If statement gets rejected by WA. 


#50
May1709, 02:11 PM

P: 490

Of course, when I ask "convert kilograms to joules", it says they're not compatible. But if
wavelength = (speed of light) / frequency works, why not energy = mass (speed of light squared) ? 


#51
May1709, 02:15 PM

P: 78

The following works: 'kilograms to Joules/c^2'
Compare WA to Google for the following query: 'GeV/c^2 to kilograms' Both get the right number, but WA also puts this mass in perspective in terms of elementary particles e.g. 1.1 proton masses. 


#52
May1709, 02:16 PM

P: 2,828

It also serves one important purpose : put pressure on everybody to make it come true sooner. 


#53
May1709, 02:20 PM

P: 490

"they are not computable. "
I think you and I have a fundamentally different idea of what "computable" means. For me, computation is not only working out answers to mathematical problems, but also constructing a sentence in the English language, finding information in a database, and really coming up with *any* answer. If I ask you to help me solve y''  y' + y = exp(x) You don't just tell me the answer. You develop an answer which is correct in the sense that it solves my problem (the how, not the what). You have computed the correct result by referening knowledge stored in your brain, making a list of relevant facts, and then constructing an explanation in some human language in such a way that my brain accepts your input string and the "figure out the answer to my question" program terminates. 


#54
May1709, 02:23 PM

P: 490

And as far as it only "computing" things in the restricted sense of the word, why on earth would it tell me who the twelfth president was? That's not computable in the restricted sense of the word, or any sense of the word, other than my interpretation of it as "finding relevant data".



Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Mathematica7 by Wolfram  Math & Science Software  6  
Book by Wolfram  General Physics  0  
Wolfram A new kind of science  General Physics  0  
NIST lists alpha= 7.297352568 10E3  Beyond the Standard Model  25 