Whither this blog?
I have had look at the various postings that I have made thus far and notice that, although they are "on topic", they are quite variable in their style. Some verge on seeming to be philosophical (e.g. here) whilst others use a fairly demanding level of maths/software (e.g. here), including several future postings that I currently have in draft form. I even had a comment by private email that their "brain started to explode half way through the VQ article"! I had rather hoped I would get all my comments directly to the blog; there seems to be rather a shortage of them. I seem to be talking to myself!
I operate in any (all, some, or none) of these modes of expression, and my writing and maths tends to show it. It will take a while for me to converge on an optimum approach to posting on this blog, but I suspect it will always mix together different styles. I will try to make the maths as self-evident as possible. After all, I don't think you have really understood a piece of maths until it you can explain it in such an intuitively obvious way that people ask why they are paying you do do something so trivial.
I will post software written in Mathematica to illustrate the points I am making. Maybe some (most?) people don't like my choice of computer language, but I have given my reasons for using Mathematica here. It blurs the distinction between maths and algorithms which I think is a big step forwards. This is one of the main purposes of Stephen Wolfram's New Kind of Science.
I don't think I have yet started to put in enough links to the rest of the world, so I can hardly expect other people to link to me (they haven't yet, as far as I know!). I even tried to set up a trackback from one of my earlier postings here to an arXiv paper of mine here. The trackback was received (it appeared on arXiv's "recent trackbacks" page) , but it never got attached to my paper. I guess the arXiv administrators spiked it because it was a self-comment. That's OK, and it is the appropriate policy for arXiv.
I have had a poke around blogspace and I can't find anyone at all who is posting in the area of self-organising networks (or even self-organizing networks!). There are blogs which have to do with self-organising "social" networks, but that isn't what this blog is about. So how do you start off a blogging community in a new subject area? My own areas of expertise span quantum physics as well as self-organising networks, and I intend to show just how inter-related these two areas are in future postings, so at some point my postings will start to look much more like quantum physics. I hope things will start to interest a lot more people then.
Update: The above arXiv trackback eventually appeared a little over a week after I pinged arXiv. Because this was my first such trackback I must have triggered the manual part of the "semi-automated editorial process that approves trackbacks for display". I pinged arXiv with some more trackbacks, and this time they appeared straight away. So it seems that I have been judged to be "worthy". I will use the privilege wisely.
2 Comments:
I'm poking around your various blogs this early morning, and am delighted. Who would have guessed there's another human being alive who is trying to make sense of quantum physics and neural networks at the same time?
For QM and NN I am not doing a literal fusion of these two areas, which I will leave to people like Roger Penrose. My approach to NN computations using discrete values (i.e ACEnet) is well documented, for instance my arXiv papers linked from here. As for the connection between NN and QM, I haven't yet published this work, but I will really soon now. All I can say for now is that it has to do with the connection between ACEnet and the sorts of operator techniques that are used in quantum field theory.
Post a Comment
<< Home