AlvoMaia

I intend my contributions to Wikipedia to be clear, short and objective. I thank good faith corrections, but not other ones, such as unjustified, unclear, or biased.

Contribution to Artificial General Intelligence (infinity paradox)

Dear AlvoMaia, just a quick suggestion. I think Wikipedia is the wrong place to publish this information. Perhaps it would be better to develop the idea and publish a paper in an artificial intelligence journal or at a conference. If the idea is not original, then reviewers will be able to point you to previous work. If original and the idea gains notability, then it may be appropriate to add to Wikipedia at a later stage. Good luck! pgr94 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pgr94: I really appreciate your input. I'm not in the business of Artificial Intelligence (AI). This is just a simple conclusion, and for me it is obvious. I just noticed, some time ago, that this was missing in all discussions concerning AI. As many things in Science, simple conclusions might skip, if we just "follow the books". I'm not sure if this is the case or not, and I just did what I thought it was right. I understand that AI is an important topic, involving not only lots of money, but also a sort of religious belief that human brains can be emulated by machines. In fact they can't, well at least by finite machines. This might be seen as sideback in the atheistic believe on Material Science... because everybody is saying that discrete neuronal impulses justify our thought. Well, perhaps the only thing to be corrected is the "discrete" assumption, as the impulse function holds "continuum" infinity. This would do the trick, at least from the mathematical point of view, concerning this infinity point. There are many others.

Now, concerning possible future publication of this... Since the moment this is made public in the internet, anybody can do whatever he pleases with it. Of course, if he is honest, he can say that he saw it in Wikipedia, or somewhere else. This is not the first place where it is written in the internet, and there are even conferences where it has been presented, as a marginal note.

I'm not in a crusade over this. I felt obliged to share this remark, because I saw everybody ignoring it, and it is important, at least to be mentioned from the very beginning. If it is not a statement, it is a question that should be answered. So far, I have got no answers. Some colleagues just look at me like an alien when I explain, and usually say nothing, and let's talk about football. Others just say that ok, but infinity does not exist, it is an abstract idea, and abstract ideas do not exist! Wow!

You see? We were led to a point when people reffuse to admit they have abstract thinking, just because they don't want to leave the consensus in the scientific community. I think this is somehow natural, but to change this it takes a body! What does this mean? The citation issue is just a way of saying... ok, if an idea exists, we want a body to pay for it, give me the name of the guy.

Well, I believe that ideas exist beyond us, and many of the wars in Human History were led by the fact that the bodies should pay for the ideas they carry. Anonymous contribution has one advantage - only ideas are to be discussed, and no number of bodies to be counted. There are no guilties, there are no genius.

Wikipedia has that feature, of being an enormous human creation of knowledge sharing, that started mostly by anonymous policy.

I perfectly understand the need of rules and control, and I'm ok with that. The only thing that I discussed was the need to cite everything, going to the classical form of publication. The classical form of publication needs a body to pay. Wikipedia did not grow in that way, and this does not give more objectivity, because editors can cite whatever they please... and it does not make it better, as a blind rule.

I now saw that @CFCF: closed the discussion, in the talk page. The reasons are ok, but I was not the one that started a new discussion on citations there. I just pointed out what happened. I think everything is fine, but the discussion should be on the validity of what I wrote, and not if it has citations or not... that it is another thing. Thanks, once again.--AlvoMaia (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear AlvoMaia, I hope you find the following articles helpful:

• Sound and complete qualitative simulation is impossible. Artificial Intelligence, Volume 149, Number 2, October 2003, pp. 251-266(16). [1][2]
• "We present two modifications to the qualitative simulation algorithm QSIM, which improve the technique's performance in reasoning tasks involving infinite values and infinite time." from Improved Reasoning About Infinity Using Qualitative Simulation. COMPUTING AND INFORMATICS, Vol 20, No 5 (2001).[3]

With regards, pgr94 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear @Pgr94:, thank you so much for your concern, and fruitful information. I do not have access to the full papers, but from an abstract of the work of

• Causes of Ineradicable Spurious Predictions in Qualitative Simulation, O. Yilmaz and A. C. Cem Say, Volume 27, 2006

we can read:

It was recently proved that a sound and complete qualitative simulator does not exist, that is, as long as the input-output vocabulary of the state-of-the-art QSIM algorithm is used, there will always be input models which cause any simulator with a coverage guarantee to make spurious predictions in its output.

... referring to the first work you cited. As far as I can see it, this is quite similar to what I meant. That is, a simulator for qualitative/abstract knowledge is not possible (in finite time and with finite states).

On the other hand, the second paper that you cite, IMPROVED REASONING ABOUT INFINITY USING QUALITATIVE SIMULATION, as far as I read from the abstract, the authors devise only an algorithm that it is better to predict dynamical systems asymptotic behavior, when dealing with infinite values and infinite time.

I think now that things are getting clearer. A similar result is known, and I guess I just explained it in a shorter way. I'm happy with that. There is no contradiction with the second paper, as the authors don't claim that they will be able to produce an algorithm that performs an infinity task. They are just improving an imprecise algorithm.

Please let me know if you agree with me. And also, if you would be willing to support the submission of a paragraph with title

Sound and complete qualitative simulation is impossible

If Wikipedia is resuming to exact citations, and nothing else is accepted, than it would be useless to me to explain my point again.

I believe your references hit most part of the point, and anyhow that information is missing.

Many thanks. Best regards.--AlvoMaia (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)