From alangrimes@starpower.net Wed May 2 12:00:05 2001 From: alangrimes@starpower.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Wed May 2 11:00:05 2001 Subject: New class of T machines... Message-ID: <3AF04B52.3F2DDA96@starpower.net> om As much as I try to get beyond turing machines (preferring the lambda calc), I just had an idea regarding them: Not all turing machines are the same. You can build a turing machine to do any function, In many cases the resulting machine can do ONLY that function. But still there is a subset of those machines that are called *UNIVERSAL* turing machines. These are such that they behave as interpriters for any language of your choice using any grammar. This language in turn can be used to evaluate any function that can be expressed in them, including interpriters for other languages. My idea is that there exists yet another subset of these universal turing machines that could be called "universal universal turing machines" that operate as follows: To use a universal universal turing machine you first feed it a "primer" tape that consists of a training tape that will place the machine in one of an arbitrarily large set of halting states. In other words this tape will be capable of configuring the UU turing machine in a state such that it will emulate any given universal turing machine. This is different than including a program with an interpriter on the same tape. It literally means that you can take any tape of your choice, encode a primer tape and then expect the UU machine to match the behavior of any other turing machine of your choice. My belief is that such a machine would solve a large portion of the problem of general intelligence. Work is just beginning on this new idea, the only thing I can say is that the power of such a machine would be measured by how many symbols it was capable of learning off the primer tape... That is UU turing machines aren't completely universal, only for a certain complexity class of other turing machines... om PS: I could use all the help I can get working on this! -- Cybernetic Intelligence: The gateway to the future! =) http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/ From: Alan Grimes [mailto:alangrimes@starpower.net] >As much as I try to get beyond turing machines (preferring the lambda >calc), I just had an idea regarding them: The two aren't well related. However, Abstract State Machines conceptually provide something of a link between them. >Not all turing machines are the same. >You can build a turing machine to do any function, In many cases the >resulting machine can do ONLY that function. But still there >is a subset >of those machines that are called *UNIVERSAL* turing machines. >These are >such that they behave as interpriters for any language of your choice >using any grammar. This language in turn can be used to evaluate any >function that can be expressed in them, including interpriters >for other languages. This is true. >My idea is that there exists yet another subset of these universal >turing machines that could be called "universal universal turing >machines" that operate as follows: This is trivially true: that subset is an improper subset. All universal turing machines are universal universal as well. This is true by definition of the word 'universal'; if Turing and his cohorts had not meant the word 'universal' they wouldn't have used it. -Billy From mrheddy@hotmail.com Sun May 6 12:33:02 2001 From: mrheddy@hotmail.com (T.J. Mills) Date: Sun May 6 11:33:02 2001 Subject: PowerPC OS programming Message-ID:
  I was wondering if anybody out there could point me to some information concerning the bootstrap loading process for PowerPC-based Macintoshes, including boot sector format, BIOS information, and perhaps some hardware/device info too? I have been searching the net but it seems extremely difficult to find.
 
 Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Thanks,
T.J. Mills
mrheddy@hotmail.com

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

From m.dentico@galactica.it Mon May 7 07:51:02 2001 From: m.dentico@galactica.it (Massimo Dentico) Date: Mon May 7 06:51:02 2001 Subject: PowerPC OS programming References: Message-ID: <3AF6A80B.3F4D3335@galactica.it> "T.J. Mills" wrote: > > I was wondering if anybody out there could point me > to some information concerning the bootstrap loading > process for PowerPC-based Macintoshes, including boot > sector format, BIOS information, and perhaps some > hardware/device info too? I have been searching the net > but it seems extremely difficult to find. > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks, > T.J. Mills > mrheddy@hotmail.com A good starting point for BIOS information on PowerPC-based computers (not only Apple, but IBM also) is the Open Firmware (IEEE-1275 Standard) home page: - http://www.openfirmware.org/ Essentially is a specification for a largely machine-independent BIOS based on ANS Forth - http://tunes.org/Review/Languages.html#FORTH Apple at their Developer Website - http://developer.apple.com/ has some documents (Technical Notes) - http://developer.apple.com/technotes/ related to Open Firmware. For example, in the hardware section - http://developer.apple.com/technotes/indexes/hw-a.html you can find the "Fundamentals of Open Firmware" series: "Part I: The User Interface" - http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1061.html "Part II: The Device Tree" - http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1062.html "Part III: Understanding PCI Expansion ROM Choices for Mac OS 8" - http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1044.html I hope this helps. Best regards. -- Massimo Dentico From Johan.Boule@Online.Fr Thu May 10 09:06:02 2001 From: Johan.Boule@Online.Fr (Johan Boulé) Date: Thu May 10 08:06:02 2001 Subject: Tr: [music-dsp] [OT] human intellect Message-ID: <004f01c0d956$a3afdbc0$5614e4d5@johan> ----- Message d'origine ----- De : "Michael Gogins" À : Envoyé : jeudi 10 mai 2001 02:11 Objet : Re: [music-dsp] [OT] human intellect > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Olli Niemitalo > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 4:13 AM > Subject: Re: [music-dsp] [OT] human intellect > > > > > > On Mon, 7 May 2001, Michael Gogins wrote: > > > > > The problem is a contradiction between the normal presupposition that > the > > > human intellect is adequate (given enough time) to solve any arbitrary > one > > > of the infinite set of solvable Diophantine equations, and the fact that > if > > > we are Turing machines we can't do that. > > > > (Is it a fact?) > > It's much closer to being a fact than most facts. If a formal system is > consistent, then there are true propositions that can be stated in the > system that cannot be proved. Alternatively, given a universal Turing > machine, there are other Turing machines that it can simulate; some of these > will halt and others will not; there is no universal Turing machine that, > given another Turing machine to simulate, can decide in advance whether it > will halt. > > In short, if mathematics is consistent, then it is indeed a fact. > > > > > My view is that the strength of human intllect comes from that we always > > leave a slight possibility of being wrong. (Did debugging *really* kill > > all the bugs in the program?) In a very strict sense, proofs by humans are > > not proofs because we can make mistakes. > > This is related to the question of the consistency of mathematics. As a > matter of fact, professional mathematicians normally assume that even if > mathematics as we know it is perhaps not consistent due to some oversight, > it can be made to be consistent - that it is possible for it to be > consistent - that consistency is a real possibility in the strict sense. If > this is the case (and it would be silly to do mathematics if it were not) > then proofs by humans are still proofs even if we can make mistakes. > Frequently proofs are overhauled and tightened up. They are still proofs - > they are still the most certain things we know, except for the fact that we > exist and we think, and the bare facts of daily life. > > > I see human intellect as a chaotic system consisting of a huge number of > > simple (mechanical) building blocks, so basicly a machine from the > > inside. > > > > About simulated humans.. Why not some day? It is impossible to do an exact > > simulation of the physics, but numerical approximation could be taken far > > enough given enough processing power. This should happen about a century > > after we have a full-scale simulation of a cell. (Today we can do some > > rough simulation of biomolecule interactions, which is not much) > > This is the question at issue. You cannot ASSUME what we are trying to > DECIDE. > > You have collapsed a large number of questions into one. The advantage of > thinking in terms of formal systems and/or Turing machines is that it is a > reasonable view that any scientific theory can be represented by a formal > system or a Turing machine. Consequently, things that can't be done with > formal systems or Turing machines can't be done with scientific theories. > > As I have said elsewhere, it is an open question in physics, the philosophy > of science, and general philosophy whether in fact Nature IS a Turing > machine or CAN BE DESCRIBED BY a Turing machine (not quite the same thing). > Formal systems and Turing machines are discrete entities; they make > decisions based on discrete inputs. Consequently, they have a limited > complexity. Their complexity is either finite or, at most, countably > infinite (like the integers or fractions). If Nature is not discrete but > continuous, or in some other way has a complexity that is uncountably > infinite (like the real numbers), then it cannot even be described by a > Turing machine or formal system. > > If this is the case, then it is POSSIBLE that human beings nevertheless are > Turing machines even if Nature as such is not, yet of course it is not > NECESSARY that human beings are Turing machines. If Nature is of finite > complexity, or of countably infinite complexity that can be described by a > Turing machine, then human beings NECESSARILY can be described by Turing > machines (a simulated machine). > > This is a fundamental question that cannot be answered a priori. > > In general, in spite of the usual tone of responses to my remarks and the > common beliefs of scientifically educated people, the evidence for Nature > being a machine, or describable by a formal system or Turing machine, is > distinctly less than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. At the > same time, the abilities of computers have obviously increased; they can > beat anyone at chess, for example, and do clumsy routine language > translation. > > In my opinion, this question, if it can be resolved at all, will be resolved > either at the level of fundamental physics, or by another advance in > philosophy of logic on the order of Goedel's theorems, the halting theorem, > and the work of Gregory Chaitin. > > I do not think the question can be resolved by producing a machine that acts > human. It is obviously possible or at least conceivable to do that by means > quite different from thse we actually use to act human, and that would fail > outside of the test situation. > > > dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, > FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links > http://shoko.calarts.edu/musicdsp/ > > From water@tunes.org Thu May 17 15:40:02 2001 From: water@tunes.org (Brian Rice) Date: Thu May 17 14:40:02 2001 Subject: Arrow Snapshot Message-ID: While I'm out for this month-long trip, I thought it would be at least worthwhile for you to see where I'm going with Arrow code. The new file is at: http://www.tunes.org/~water/arrow/ listed as Arrows.alpha.cs The requirements are much the same. The Arrow tests file still applies, but there are many more advanced features included. However, a lot of confusing changes have been kept separate from this, to avoid confusing people *too* much. :) Note that there is still an ArrowWorld, but it is now an ArrowFrame, and FrameGraph has been removed. Read every single comment you can find. There are still several places where comments are too sparse or not present, and I will try to address those as I am in the middle of a major rewrite of a lot of the functionality towards including the full implementation of a dynamically-grounded algebraic rewrite system with context management closely coupled with the frame system. More in 11 days... sorry for the delays, dealing with fundamental issues in information theory at this point is pretty difficult. As always comments and questions are encouraged. Hopefully you will find this set of code much more readable anyway. Thanks, ~ From vngalchin@yahoo.com Sat May 19 15:53:02 2001 From: vngalchin@yahoo.com (Galchin Vasili) Date: Sat May 19 14:53:02 2001 Subject: "The Arrow Manifesto: ...." by Zinovy Diskin and Boris Kadish Message-ID: <20010519215236.2273.qmail@web12201.mail.yahoo.com> Hello Brian, Have you read Diskin's and Kadish's papers on CT and database theory? Here are a bunch of papers that all look pretty germane to what you are doing: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/167037.html Regards, Vasili N Galchin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From vngalchin@yahoo.com Sun May 20 01:46:02 2001 From: vngalchin@yahoo.com (Galchin Vasili) Date: Sun May 20 00:46:02 2001 Subject: Arrow.alpha.cs question In-Reply-To: <20010518132805.E30F0C1E@bespin.org> Message-ID: <20010520074535.30575.qmail@web12207.mail.yahoo.com> Hello, I am still scrambling trying to learn Squeak. I have fileIn'd the .cs and browsed it. Now what? Regards, Vasili N Galchin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions.yahoo.com/ From BRice@vinson.navy.mil Sun May 20 19:46:02 2001 From: BRice@vinson.navy.mil (RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2) Date: Sun May 20 18:46:02 2001 Subject: Arrow.alpha.cs question Message-ID: <39F2C3378457D41192510020486435BF6734AD@cvn70uex02.vinson.navy.mil> > Hello, > > I am still scrambling trying to learn Squeak. > I have fileIn'd the .cs and browsed it. Now what? > > Regards, > > Vasili N Galchin There are two options... The first I suggest is that you attempt to load the Arrows Project file first, which is the file ending in ".pr". This loads the previous changeset (".cs") and a desktop with some windows open on the code in various views. If that works, then go and file in the new changeset, which should directly over-write the old one and you should see updated code views automatically. The alternative is to learn how to do what the Project file tries to show you how to do. There are several hot-keys that can be used to get around and several browsers of note. Also, under the desktop help menu there is a "command keys help" option that brings up lots of hotkeys to use. At any rate, under Desktop/Open.../Browser or Package Browser, you get a class browser. You should see the Arrow code at the very bottom of the list on the left side. This is a multi-pane browser (the original actually), where you can click down to get at classes, method categories, and individual methods. Three buttons in the class pane allow you to look at instance-methods, class-methods, and then additional things from "?". "?" brings up class comments, class hierarchy, and some other view when clicked successively. Also, you can open up a change-sorter or dual change sorter from the same "Open..." menu, and you will see the "Arrows" or "Arrow logic" changeset, along with the defined methods in various classes. The bottom pane has a menu that allows you to see the changeset ReadMe. One view I find most helpful is to hit "alt-h" or "alt-p" on a class to get its inheritance hierarchy or total protocol view, respectively. In particular, the hierarchy of ArrowStub and Reference are together the most informative views of all the classes, which for what I released is 41 in number. Once you start creating variables in workspaces ("a:= Arrow new" or "b _ Arrow from: a to: Arrow new" or something. Make sure to select text and "alt-d" to evaluate.), you can select their names and hit "alt-i" to inspect or "alt-I" to explore. Alternatively, select code and hit "alt-d" to DoIt, or "alt-p" to print the result (not as informative for arrows yet). I hope that helps, ~ From BRice@vinson.navy.mil Mon May 21 17:12:01 2001 From: BRice@vinson.navy.mil (RE01 Rice Brian T. EM2) Date: Mon May 21 16:12:01 2001 Subject: "The Arrow Manifesto: ...." by Zinovy Diskin and Boris Kadish Message-ID: <39F2C3378457D41192510020486435BF6734AE@cvn70uex02.vinson.navy.mil> > Hello Brian, > > Have you read Diskin's and Kadish's papers on CT > and database theory? Here are a bunch of papers that > all look pretty germane to what you are doing: > > http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/167037.html > > Regards, > > Vasili N Galchin Not in a while, but yes I have read them. I checked my hard drive the other day and have not located a copy, but I can get a new set of copies in about 10 days. Side note: the Arrow code is due for a big refactoring, since a lot of the 41 classes perform similar functions. A lot of this will involve meta-programming to some extent. This should make a lot of notably absent features/semantics available and more natural to express. Also note that it's not intended for everyone to learn Smalltalk just to hack with Arrows. Mostly it's only good for small examples right now, and primarily for explanation purposes. When I am satisfied with the architecture's semantics, I have code from the QSOUL project and some other related ones that can be re-used for an interactive evaluator UI. More later, ~