I remember this blog post on "Why are eight bits enough for deep neural networks?" (https://petewarden.com/2015/05/23/why-are-eight-bits-enough-for-deep-neural-networks/ …), and more recent this "Ultra-low precision training" https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2019/05/ultra-low-precision-training/ … which seem to say that neural nets really are digital computation.
-
-
Replying to @AlexisToumi @_julesh_ and
Neurons aren't digital. Annealing isn't digital. Radar isn't digital. We need to be careful not to get the simulation confused with the original. That was the key insight of 1986.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oliverbeige @AlexisToumi and
You seem to use the word digital in a simplistic way like how artists use it. The digital is a logic, numeric-based system with terminating computational functions. All such machines if you call them computers should be isomorphic to the logic of a regular-rule-bound system.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @AlexisToumi and
In case you haven't noticed, this is the boundary I have navigated for a good forty years, so nothing I do here is "simplistic". If you don't stop your attempts at splaining and actually try to offer a counter position, you go on the block.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oliverbeige @AlexisToumi and
No it was you who was splaining and here is an instance, 'I have worked on this front for 40 years.' Yes good I also wrote my dissertation on these issues 20+ years ago. . Either we begin to look at the fundamental problems calmly or it would be just talking past each other.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @AlexisToumi and
You offering a definition of what you think computing is, and hold it up as the only valid one against a mountain of counterevidence. There is nothing to discuss, really. Have a good day.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @oliverbeige @AlexisToumi and
Typical dogmatist who doesn't even have the courage to debate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @oliverbeige and
Debate? That's scholasticism, not mathematics
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @_julesh_ @oliverbeige and
Mathematics is neither physics nor computation. Plus, where did you think modern mathematics come from?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @_julesh_ and
why don't you anglophones just use "numerical" instead of "digital" or at least specify one with the other? digital is a very effective term, but it's highly technical and poorly scientific, once left the electronic network model...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Good point. Sorry 
-
-
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @_julesh_ and
I did not mean to say you're using it wrong... imo the term is highly embedded with English language, and that's its strength, but I think that makes the word very difficult to use in systematic reflective discourses (i.e. philosophy).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KirkoMal @NegarestaniReza and
However, your question is valid and philosophically charged, but it seems, in the tweet's answers, the ambiguity of the term disturbed the discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.