Neuring Machine

[Jordan B Pollack]

>> Why you think it's okay to suppose you have infinite-precision neurons
>> but not okay to suppose you have infinitely many neurons is a mystery to me,
>> since each seems about as impossible as the other.  
>> 	--Paul 
>> 	kube at cs.ucsd.edu

There are two reasons not to assume an unbounded network:

   1) Each new unit doesnt just add more memory, but also adds
      "control."

   2) The Neuron Factory would still be "outside" the system, which is
      the original problem with McPitt's tape.

Also, there IS a difference between infinite and unbounded (but
still finite in practice). Various proofs of the "universal
approximation" of neural networks (such as White, et al)
depend on an unbounded (but not infinite) number of hidden units.

Finally, there is also a difference between a theoretical
argument about competency and a practical argument about what machines
can be physically built. Since, as someone in AI, I have always
simulated every connectionist model I've researched (including the
Neuring machine), Paul Kube (along with several readers of my thesis)
seemed to take my theoretical argument (about a sufficient set of
primitive elements) as a programme of building neural networks in a
physically impossible and very stilted fashion.

Jordan Pollack                            Assistant Professor
CIS Dept/OSU                              Laboratory for AI Research
2036 Neil Ave                             Email: pollack at cis.ohio-state.edu
Columbus, OH 43210                        Fax/Phone: (614) 292-4890