Sunday, November 3, 2013

4d

And now, for first time on television, we present to you the interview with Eric Green, taken by Patricia Stone.
- Hello Eric, and welcome to our studio.
- Hello Patricia, it's a pleasure.
- Your story made world news, but some of our audience might have missed the details, before we move on with the questions, could you describe to them what happened to you, and why that changes the world as we know it.
- I managed to extend my existence into a 4th dimension. You are about to ask me if time is the 4th dimension, and the answer is - no, it is not. Answering you before you asked the question might seem to contradict that, but it does not. The forth dimension is not entangled with any of the 3 dimensions we take fore granted, neither with time. It allows me to stand aside from the a specific point of the space-time and observe it's "surrounding" space-time. To make it more clear - imagine that the space-time is a line of boxes from -infinity to +infinity. If we take a one box of it to represent the current moment in time and space, I would be able to "rise" a bit above the line and thus observe what's inside the neighboring boxes. I cannot move back and forth between boxes, only observe them. Also I cannot view clearly the entire content of the boxes, due to looking to them at an angle. That allows for some uncertainty on the exact events to take place.
- So you are like a medium that can see what will happen into the immediate future?
- I do not "see" it in a form of a vision, but I feel what will happen next with some amount of certainty.
- Isn't that something that everyone does?
- It is. Only I do it with extreme success, that cannot be matched or explained by scientists.
- Can you tell us how you achieved the extending to 4D?
- It started as a project for a video game. The idea was to allow the player to act in a virtual 4D space. There are already such games in development, but they represent only 3 dimensions at a time, and you can just switch one predefined of the 3 presented with a predefined 4th one. In that sense, you never experience 4D - all the dimensions at once. I wanted to come up with a way to represent all the dimensions simultaneously.
At some point I asked myself how would 2D entities attempt to visualize the 3D, and I figured that it's impossible. We see through light, but you can use any electromagnetic wave. These waves, do not "exit" the 3D space, neither such waves "enter" in our 3D from the 4th dimension. (That is because it's not entangled with the 3D). Therefore there cannot be visual representation of the 4D. So I decided to try and observe 4D through another sense. Blindfolded I started attempting to imagine what will it be like to hold a 4D cube. It took a lot of time and there was a lot of frustration, but at one point I managed to construct a model of the sensation that holding a 4D cube will imply.
I kept on training with more and different 4D shapes. It took me a great deal of time and practice to achieve that without closing my eyes first - that was the hardest part. However with time I learned, and it became more and more easier. I started to sensory imagine various 4D extensions of real life objects. At some point I jumped to perceive 4D space - the 4D shape that was not filled by the 4D extensions of the real objects.
I discovered that my 4D view of the world is real through an accident. One day I was exercising my 4D sensuality by extending the whole office. I figured, there is overlapping of some objects, and traced them to try and repair what I though was an error on my behalf. However the reduced result implied that my colleague's coffee cup should be in pieces. The next instant I observed my colleague knocking his cup of the desk. Initially I dismissed the fact that I predicted the breaking of the cup by telling myself it was a coincidence and that I probably saw his hand move just before making the conclusion on subconscious level, and only then considering the 4D implication.
- It sounds amazing, how long ago did you start imagining the 4D?
- It was about 18 years ago.
- One of our viewers has a question: "Doesn't the 3D base allow multiple 4D extensions?"
- It does, but I always choose ones that are proportional to their 3D sizes. Often the 4D scenery greatly narrows possible extensions into the 4D. Considering the relative positions of the objects in the past also reduces the options. And the remaining different options constitute the creeping uncertainty.
- Another question from the audience: "How do people extend in the 4D?"
- Ah, you are on the right track with that question. It's nearly impossible to define the right extension for people. I tend to imagine their extension as a mist. I associate the feeling as touching a dense liquid, or jelly - it's soft and bends to the applied force, but returns to the initial form if the force is removed. Unlike jelly my perception does not have definite edge, however I imagine a sort of an envelop that defines all possible extensions inside of it. That envelop is relatively at the defined by the edge where the sensory feedback cannot be distinguished from zero. Note that it's something that I imagine, it's not a property of the shape. One might feel that interaction by human upon an object should increase the possible extensions of the scenery, but in practice it's quite the opposite. Often interaction with a well defined object reduces the person's 4D extension possibilities to just one. Human to human interaction can go both ways - my observations do not incline in any direction.
- So what you're saying is that me holding the microphone makes my future predetermined.
- If you are about to bump me on the head with the mic to prove that your actions aren't predetermined - please don't.
- Ha ha, that's incredible, I was just considering that...
- Yes, it is true, that my experiences and other senses influence the way I extend the scenery into 4D. If I wasn't using previously remembered 4D models it would be impossible to "observe" the 4D in real time. If fact we do the same thing when we view the 3D with our eyes. Over 90% of what we see is based on our memory. Looking at a light bulb gives us information of a bright spot. It's our memory that gives us info on what's behind the glare. It's the same with interpreting visual information based on knowledge of our environment. When you are on a train and look at a passing closely by column, what you get as visual information is a smeared bit of gray. Our knowledge of being on the train and that it's common that the same column we saw at the station, to repeat along the tracks, that allows us to interpret the visual data.
- Many of our viewers still believe that your abilities are a hoax, and cannot accept the implications that they imply, how does that make you feel?
- I understand them. I feel a bit sorry for them, because that means they cannot adapt well to the new understanding of the world. The new concept will find applications in real life and sooner or later they will have to embrace it if they want to fall behind from the rest of the world.
- Do you plan to extend to 5D any time soon?
- No, I don't. I plan to work on making the sensory mapping more precise, and I hope this will allow me to peer a bit further into the future.
- Thank you Eric for the time, and I wish you luck with your endeavor.
- Thank you, and good night.

Iliyan Bobev, Copyright 2010.

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Утре започва от днес - защо смятам че протеста трябва да продължи

Проблема не е само във избора на Пеевски, проблема е в начина по който той беше избран. Проблема е че това беше допуснато да се случи. Все още не са признали че този човек е неподходящ за позицията - шикалкавят за това че не преценили реакцията. Промените гласувани в закона са ясно доказателство че поста е нагласен за определен човек - нямали са намерение да "избират", всичко е било решено. Абсурдно е законите да се пишат и гласуват за удобството на отделни хора. Доказатествата са обнародвани в Държавен вестник.

Това е моята гражданска позиция - на протеста съм, защото целия смисъл на прехода се състои в това. За разлика от времето преди 1989г. можем да го направим без да се срахуваме. Но не тряба да забавяме, че гражданската позиция не е само привилегия а е дълг. Дължим го най-малко на родителите си, които се бориха за това, а и много повече на децата си, които ще взимат пример от нас за да се справят сами с проблемите утре.

#ДАНСwithme

Monday, February 11, 2013

Thoughts on Gold’s Theorem


Thoughts on Gold's Theorem and article "Gold’s Theorem and cognitive science"

http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/papers/years/2004/logical/gold-johnson.pdf

* Gold's Theorem *

(short representation of the theorem as I understand it)

I. Given an environment E and a language L, the learner learns L given E if there is some time tn such that at tn and all
times afterward, the learner correctly guesses that L is the target language present in the environment. (Gold himself called this condition "identification in the limit".)

 In my opinion, that is to say that someone has learned a language after she starts to distinguish the properly formed sentences from the improper ones in respect to language L.

II. Let's deconstruct a language to a set of languages, each differing with one sentence, which is invalid in Ln but is valid in Ln+1. This set is infinite and each language is contained in all subsequent. The last one Linf, would contain all sentences from all other languages in the set.

III. Theorem states that function F that properly recognizes the language given a set of example sentences will either never converge for Linf or it will jump to Linf without properly converging on some of the previous sub-language.

 Formal definition: (GT) Any class of languages with the Gold Property is unlearnable.
 Where class of languages with the Gold Property is the infinite deconstruction set of a language.

* Interpretation *

My interpretation is that the "Golden Property" actually can only be observed in a language deconstruction set. Therefore the theorem concerns a single language and it unlearnability via expanding set of examples. Therefore I think that the whole premise in the article is flawed.

* Alternative presentation of the theorem *

Here's how I would cover the same concept:
a) language is infinite as there are infinitely many sentences that would conform with its grammar;
b) decomposing the language in sub-languages differing by a single sentence forms infinite set which complies with the "golden rule";
c) negative evidence - examples of incorrect sentences, will be points lying outside the vector representing the language;
d) Learning language is establishing a function that determines whether a point belongs to the vector;
Prove:
Let the language be a vector, and each proper sentence of it is a point on that vector; that makes each sub-language a represented as line segment. Given a set of dots on that vector, they will always be contained in more than one line segment. Successful learning the language will always rely on a "projection" of the received data points in order to encompass the vector and its infiniteness. Therefore the knowledge of a language is more than a set of proper examples and negative evidence.

* Thoughts on the Model *

I like to develop this generic model further by allowing the exceptions of the grammar rules to lay outside of the vector. Ideally each rule will define a plane in multidimensional space and the intersection of the planes will define the vector for the language. Some tensor will encompass the the vector and all the exception points. Then the volume of that tensor may be used to define the difficulty of learning that language. Or we can set the volume of the tensor encompassing 95% of all proper sentences, because one exception laying far from the vector may cause more volume than many that are closer. Such model also accounts for the fact that projection (of samples to vector), alone, is also insufficient to provide learning of the language. A lot of samples will be required on top of the projection in order to account for all exceptions.
How we form the space - if we use as many dimensions as there are grammar rules in the language, the end result will be a single point, as each rule eliminates one dimension out. To bring this to one dimensional result we add a dimension enumerating the set of all proper sentences. Bringing this in to view with the exceptions laying outside of the vector, we are to say that there are alternative vectors originating from the same point obeying the all rules, but defining different set, which is wrong.
So we need to start with all possible sentences, regardless of language. Then we start to chop down dimensions for each grammar rule we add. But there is no guarantee the end result will be a line, it might as well be a plane. That doesn't change the concept of having exceptions of the rules lie outside of the rule restricted region, but provides insight to why the language acquisition is difficult - the more dimensions there are in the final region, the more difficult it will be to obtain a function that determines if a point belongs to the proper grammar.
There is another aspect of language that may be represented in the model - the ***. There are many sentences that follow proper grammar, but we do not see in the day to day language use. These could be many, but let's take one example - "Noun is very very very very very ... very adjective". We can see sentences with 2-3 times "very" in them, but one with more than 5 starts to seem odd. And technically we can have infinitely many times the word "very" without breaking the grammar. This indicates that there are whole segments in the multidimensional language shape that are not used. Introducing some additional (soft) rules will definitely reduce the language volume and its dimensionality. These additional rules should be soft, since they can still find use in some fringe situations.

* End thoughts *

- Overall I am convinced that the both rationalist and empiricist approach are needed to explain language acquisition.
- Learning a language is not a discrete event.
- Natural languages are not strictly defined.
- Even grammatical rules are "soft" and breaking them does not necessarily prevent communication.

Iliyan Bobev 2013 (c) all rights reserved.