Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExplanation of an Invisible Common Constraint of Mind, Mathematics and Computational Complexity
42
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Asad Malik
Publication date
2017
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Authors
Asad Malik
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
There is a cognitive limit in Human Mind. This cognitive limit has played a decisive role in almost all fields including computer sciences. The cognitive limit replicated in computer sciences is responsible for inherent Computational Complexity. The complexity starts decreasing if certain conditions are met, even sometime it does not appears at all. Very simple Mechanical computing systems are designed and implemented to demonstrate this idea and it is further supported by Electrical systems. These verifiable and consistent systems demonstrate the idea of computational complexity reduction. This work explains a very important but invisible connection from Mind to Mathematical axioms (Peano Axioms etc.) and Mathematical axioms to computational complexity. This study gives a completely new perspective that goes well beyond Cognitive Science, Mathematics, Physics, Computer Sciences and Philosophy. Based on this new insight some important predictions are made.
rate research
Read More
Theory of Mind is commonly defined as the ability to attribute mental states (e.g., beliefs, goals) to oneself, and to others. A large body of previous work - from the social sciences to artificial intelligence - has observed that Theory of Mind capabilities are central to providing an explanation to another agent or when explaining that agents behaviour. In this paper, we build and expand upon previous work by providing an account of explanation in terms of the beliefs of agents and the mechanism by which agents revise their beliefs given possible explanations. We further identify a set of desiderata for explanations that utilize Theory of Mind. These desiderata inform our belief-based account of explanation.
The present document is an excerpt of an essay that I wrote as part of my application material to graduate school in Computer Science (with a focus on Artificial Intelligence), in 1986. I was not invited by any of the schools that received it, so I became a theoretical physicist instead. The essays full title was Some Topics in Philosophy and Computer Science. I am making this text (unchanged from 1985, preserving the typesetting as much as possible) available now in memory of Jerry Fodor, whose writings had influenced me significantly at the time (even though I did not always agree).
Ligands for only two human olfactory receptors are known. One of them, OR1D2, binds to Bourgeonal [Malnic B, Godfrey P-A, Buck L-B (2004) The human olfactory receptor gene family. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci U. S. A. 101: 2584-2589 and Erratum in: Proc Natl Acad Sci U. S. A. (2004) 101: 7205]. OR1D2, OR1D4 and OR1D5 are three full length olfactory receptors present in an olfactory locus in human genome. These receptors are more than 80% identical in DNA sequences and have 108 base pair mismatches among them. We have used L-system mathematics and have been able to show a closely related subfamily of OR1D2, OR1D4 and OR1D5.
Computers are known to solve a wide spectrum of problems, however not all problems are computationally solvable. Further, the solvable problems themselves vary on the amount of computational resources they require for being solved. The rigorous analysis of problems and assigning them to complexity classes what makes up the immense field of complexity theory. Do protein folding and sudoku have something in common? It might not seem so but complexity theory tells us that if we had an algorithm that could solve sudoku efficiently then we could adapt it to predict for protein folding. This same property is held by classic platformer games such as Super Mario Bros, which was proven to be NP-complete by Erik Demaine et. al. This article attempts to review the analysis of classical platformer games. Here, we explore the field of complexity theory through a broad survey of literature and then use it to prove that that solving a generalized level in the game Celeste is NP-complete. Later, we also show how a small change in it makes the game presumably harder to compute. Various abstractions and formalisms related to modelling of games in general (namely game theory and constraint logic) and 2D platformer video games, including the generalized meta-theorems originally formulated by Giovanni Viglietta are also presented.
We discuss the connection between computational social choice (comsoc) and computational complexity. We stress the work so far on, and urge continued focus on, two less-recognized aspects of this connection. Firstly, this is very much a two-way street: Everyone knows complexity classification is used in comsoc, but we also highlight benefits to complexity that have arisen from its use in comsoc. Secondly, more subtle, less-known complexity tools often can be very productively used in comsoc.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
