AI and the singularity

Discussion in 'Intelligence & Machines' started by arfa brane, Jun 9, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    Why should it need to ?
    Can you give an example?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    Division by zero is plus zero. Nothing was neccessary for the creation of life. +0.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    Ok, if that is proper math, then you may be right. OTOH, if 0 = (+ 0) then where does the division come in play?
    Now if 0/0 = 1, then we'd have something. But of course it doesn't. The answer is always zero.

    In any case I cannot see a real life scenario in nature, where 0/0 = +0 = indetermined?
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2018
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    "Nothing lasts forever." That's conception. It's something that occurs to every human. For this to occur, nothing is neccessary. It may not be plus zero, but it's definitely zero.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    Theoretically there are animals that do not die. Check out this link:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii

    Not unlike the slime mold, which consists of cooperative single cell polyps.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    Question; what does AI have to do with "the singularity" anyway?

    In it's broadest sense the singularity (universe) is an AI itself. Perhaps a better term would be " pseudo-intelligence", i.e. it functions in accordance with mathematical values and functions, but is not sentient in and of itself.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
  10. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    The first creature. Starfish do not die either.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    Well, thanks for your confirmation. That kinda disagrees with your post # 84, don't it?
     
  12. Counter Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    512
    1÷0 does not take forever to calculate!

    It doesn't contradict.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    It doesn't do anything in reality.
    If I have one of something and I don't divide it (/0), it remains one thing.

    I don't know its use in "human" theoretical mathematics, but scribbling numbers does not always translate into natural mathematical functions or expression in reality.
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    "Nothing" can also exist only for a single instant. Then there is nothing, then there is something.

    At that scale who can define Nothing? You're right, it is just a human concept.

    We define Nothing as the absence of physical stuff. It tells us nothing about the possible mathematical potentials which may exist independent of the presence of physical stuff.

    And the definition of Potential is ; "That which may become expessed in reality".
     
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  15. Lookingfor... Registered Member

    Messages:
    43
    There are two ways to interpret Counter's psychology. Nothing lasts forever, meaning nothing remains for eternity, or something will dissapate, because it will not last forever.
     
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2018
  16. TheFrogger Registered Member

    Messages:
    98
    Nothing cannot exist. If there is nothing there will be nothing forever, which gives birth to something...namely forever.
     
  17. Michael 345 In China - finding my way :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,417
    Forever is a CONCEPT

    As such it has not physicality

    As such it is nothing

    NOTHING maintains its NOTHINGNESS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,761
    From Counter Post 12
    From Write4U Post 33
    From River Post 34
    From WriteU4 Post 35[/quote]Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.[/quote]

    First consider some analysis of dividing by zero instead of guessing at the result.

    100 / 1 = 100
    100 / .1 = 1000
    100 / .01 = 10000

    As the divisor decreases, the quotient increases. There seems to be no limit to the increase as the divisor approaches zero. This suggests that the result of division by zero might be unbounded. Id est: It might be reasonable to claim that the result is infinite. Although calling it undefined might also be reasonable.
     
  19. Michael 345 In China - finding my way :) Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,417
    I thought that the fact that a number WAS a number elevated it above zero - hence it could NOT contain any zeros

    Hence my logic indicates ANY attempt to divide ANY number by zero would result in zero zeros being found inside the number

    There certainly is such smaller numbers contained within larger numbers as Dinosaur post shows

    But a zero within a number in somewhat akin to a vaccum within a air filled room

    How far apart do the air molicules for the space between them to be considered a vacuum?

    With numbers no space can exist within itself to be considered a zero

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,459
    Multiplying any value by zero = zero. Dividing by zero does not affect the original value at all.[/quote]

    First consider some analysis of dividing by zero instead of guessing at the result.

    100 / 1 = 100
    100 / .1 = 1000
    100 / .01 = 10000

    As the divisor decreases, the quotient increases. There seems to be no limit to the increase as the divisor approaches zero. This suggests that the result of division by zero might be unbounded. Id est: It might be reasonable to claim that the result is infinite. Although calling it undefined might also be reasonable.[/QUOTE] We hear that mathematics are a human invention and in the case of zero it truly is. It is a demarcation point which itself has no value.
    This may be useful in abstract mathematics, but does reality function that way? If something has no value of any kind it cannot be used in practical physics.

    And your example demonstrates dividing values by values. But if we turn this around and use multiplication instead of division, we get;

    100 x 1.0 = 100
    100 x 0.1 = 10
    100 x 0.01 = 1
    100 x 0.0 = 0
    1,000,000 x 0.0 = 0

    Or if we take the opposite:
    0 / 1 = 0
    0 / .1 = 0
    0 / .01 = 0
    0 / 100 = 0
    0 / 1,000,000 = 0

    I see it "division" as breaking a value (number) apart into constituent parts and values.
    But if I divide zero (a non-value) into any number of parts, it remains without value (zero). IMO
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2018
  21. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    590
    why humans feel
    what drives creative thought
    is free will really free will
    how is evolution crafted by the nature of biology
     
  22. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,588
    It's actually much easier to prohibit division by zero, by defining division to be restricted to non-zero divisors. In fact the Euclidean division 'algorithm' (q.v.) makes this explicit.

    Hence division by numerical zero is not defined (is a kind of contradiction of division itself) in any number system (although there are zero divisors in ring algebras).
     
    Write4U likes this.
  23. RainbowSingularity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    590
    im no mathmermagician
    just ponder'n words. when zero = a degree then zero is an actual number ?
    as opposed to individual numbers and then asserting a value to zero also being a number ?

    thus, when zero = a value, the value is the sum not the zero ? so zero is (dont know the proper word) kinda like a named 'x' value like a place holder rather than an actual number.
    philisophically musing...would this suggest that counting starts at a value rather than no value ?
    thus you do not start counting by having a zero
    you can only start counting by having a number, be it 1 or any other value ?
     

Share This Page