throwaway87423

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by throwaway87423 9y ago

   Not quite. If you're interested take a look at, https://youtu.be/eKaYnXQUb2g?t=6m10s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz9UVIo_ZUo&list=PL0AknDL1Vt... Camera homography preserves straight-lines, but
2. 2.▲
   by throwaway87423 9y ago

   "Understandable" is not necessary computable. Understanding an algorithm is equivalent to the Halting problem in my books.
3. 3.▲
   by throwaway87423 9y ago

   I think the proof is fairly simple: i) Tell a person how a Turing machine works, ii) Give her reams of paper iii) Make her miserable by running some instruction. iv) ? v) Profit! Seriously though. I don't think Turing completeness mean
4. 4.▲
   by throwaway87423 9y ago

   > When a ball is about to hit your face your brain “can’t remember how to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the ball and predict that in 100ms it will impact your face and thus you need to send a signal for your hand to move to
5. 5.▲
   by throwaway87423 9y ago

   And many people have "knowledge" we'll never "understand". So ? (Is anyone excited about the implications AI has for philosophy ?).
6. 6.▲
   by throwaway87423 9y ago

   Classical control often restricts itself to Linear systems, and non-linear control is next to useless for non drift-free systems (if you can compute the Lie algebra in the first place). SOS relaxations won't scale, and all bets are off