[Zero]

Woaw that's a big shift, esperas / e.teoria is your big project!! Giving it a week is wise indeed.

I'm currently in the process of generalizing what's left on the ground after my rain-prayer trance. And tonight, I think I'm gonna watch Matrix. I need it, like a junkie.

[Zero]

Code

↑ e = o

// if north-neighbor contains 'e', take its value with 'e' replaced by 'o'


3 f , e = o

// if 3 f around, replace 'e' by 'o' here


e = o

// replace 'e' by 'o' here


3 f , ↑ e = o

// if 3 f around, if north-neighbor contains 'e', take its value with 'e' replaced by 'o'


3 f , + e

// if 3 f around, create 'e' here

General shape is (in kinda-BNF)

rule ::=      proximity* action
proximity ::= number content ','
action ::=    replace / create
create ::=    '+' content
replace ::=   direction? content '=' content
direction ::= '↑' / '↓' / '→' / '←'

Arrow characters can of course be replaced with anything appropriate, like U D L R or whatever.

[Zero]

Feeling better.

[Zero]

  I'm not against, but I don't see how.

I just brought this out of the naphthalene a few hours ago. Coincidentally, rewriting is then mentioned in this thread, so I felt like sharing it. I'm giving it a second thought now, wanting to replace the whole logic behind esperas (v-parser) project.

I'll give it a week or two to be sure I really like it.

The whole idea is about defining basic s-expression based alternative to output (a kind of HTML in my case). Then, the grammar is extended by a user, by functions that transpile to this base output. Because it is a parser under the hood, functions may have any syntax we want. It seems that functions are fully typechecked using only the parser.

so I'd have the following:

Code

</
    </ node1 </ using grammar1 /> />
    ...
    content1
    ...
    </
        </ node1-1 </ using grammar1-1 /> />
        ...
        content1-1
        ...
        </
            ... tree goes on ...
        />
    />
    </
        </ node1-2 </ using grammar1-2 /> />
        ...
        content1-2
        ...
        </
            ... tree goes on ...
        />
    />
    ...
/>

Grammars are cumulative, which means grammars `1-1` and `1-2` are stacked on top of grammar `1`. In other words, grammars are applied cumulatively to all the children nodes. And, since grammars are full term rewriting systems, they are Turing complete, capable of doing any computations needed for e-teoria project.

The cumulative nested grammar thing is crazy    

[LOCKSUIT]

I gave the book a read. My notes are in (). It says that complexity is seen at larger scales because of all the simple programs at the lower layers, making us think a supernatural being is making the unexpected complexity emerge since we can't understand it.

But in all machines, and at all scales, are the same programs actually, everywhere. Patterns. Patterns make up art, human brains, friend networks, and eating/mating/breeding cycles. (We work with it because we are it, data let's us predict to survival more probabilistically.)

And their behavior can make all sorts of large scale behavior from an underlying simple program or programs, like a human that goes skydiving or teaches math or becomes a murder - different scenes but the same program. Or a plant that grows leftwards or rightwards or turns red, but stays/reverts back to a state if ever diverts (the short-ish, non-red, upright form), usually staying in its normal form usually, appearing to have a wide range of other forms when really there is only one it tries to grow/stay into/as. It can appear as Free Will (though note we are machines from evolution, no spirits, no choice, only physics).

Mentions Chaos Theory's initial conditions change all that follows. (btw, you can end up at the same result by many paths, the opposite of the butterfly effect!).
Mentions nanotech, we are instead shrinking know machines, and having more of them lead to the complex behavior
Mentions Fractals and Self-Organization, (patterns are used in physics because physics uses probability to make decisions, so you see context-wise 'brains' emerge and a predictable environment emerge (Earth becomes a fractal terraform). Snowflakes (and arteries and homes lined up on roads) are examples. (You seen in many cell species lots of patterns on their bodies btw, it's amazing.)

Start from something complex you want, and try to capture it in a simple program. (Worked so many times for Wolfram).

Will read it more later, too busy.

[Zero]

Now we have a mix of SRS and CA, what we get is a grid of cells that contain mutating strings. Not easy to show on a screen, and not particularly sexy. In order to display it in a pleasant geeky way, each new string is mapped to a crispy character of Unifont when it's first encountered. It is also possible to associate manually strings to characters in the rules. Those characters are then displayed on the screen and fade away in an instant. Could be green on black background...

Working on the rule parser right now.

Ok, got the rule parser now.

As usual, that's a PEGjs syntax. It turns this:

Code

3 f, ↑ bar = baz

Into this:

Code

[
   {
      "proximity": [
         {
            "number": "3",
            "content": "f"
         }
      ],
      "action": {
         "direction": "↑",
         "original": "bar ",
         "replacement": "baz"
      }
   }
]

Here it is:

Code

rulebook
= _ r:rule* { return r; }


_
= [ \t]*


rule
= p:proximity* _ a:action _ [\r\n]* _ {

	return {
    	proximity: p,
        action: a
    };
}


proximity
= n:number _ c:content _ ',' _ {
	return {
    	number: n,
        content: c
    };
}


action
= replace / create


create
= '+' _ c:content _ {
	return {
    	type: "create",
        content: c
    };
}


replace
= d:direction? _ original:content _ '=' _ replacement:content _ {
	return {
    	direction: d,
        original: original,
        replacement: replacement
    };
}


number
= d:[0-9]+ { return d.join(''); }


content
= c:[^↑↓→←,=+\r\n\(\)]+ { return c.join(''); }


direction
= ('↑' _ / '(up)' _ / '(north)' _) { return '↑'; }
/ ('↓' _ / '(down)' _ / '(south)' _) { return '↓'; }
/ ('→' _ / '(right)' _ / '(east)' _) { return '→'; }
/ ('←' _ / '(left)' _ / '(west)' _) { return '←'; }

Now, let's code!

[Zero]

Hey big guys, do you think this toy of mine has any chance of being relevant?
Edit: "big guys" means all of you, members of this forum, who are good at what you do, whatever it is.

[LOCKSUIT]

Honestly, it's not interesting me one bit.... Great things are powerful and simple and intuitive and can be sold in a clear pitch.

I don't understand what your code/plan does or how it works though.

[Zero]

If you don't get it, then what don't you ask? And am I supposed to sell things? I don't think so. In fact, you're not answering my question.

And can also say, while I'm at it, that I'm almost about to get you out of my ignore-list. Maybe the crazy man of the village is still part of the village. He's one of its components. And your constant meaningless blah blah still have a value, after all. It is an extreme creativity layer in our proceedings, annoying sometimes, when you're anywhere anytime, but still source of inspirations, just like random shapes of clouds can be inspiring, for the man who has a look at them, during a quiet time. You inputs are valuable, I'm starting to understand that.

But my question was a real / serious one. Is this direction of an SRS/CA mix looks like a path that deserve to be explored, with the hope that it could be fertile, in terms of algorithms related to AI. And I was asking this question to people here who do create implemented tools, namely ivan.moony, infurl, korrelan, Art, Fred, and of course our elusive female engineer

[infurl]

do you think this toy of mine has any chance of being relevant?

Yes, you're doing great Zero. The only thing that really matters though is whether or not it interests you. Don't ever do things to impress anyone else; just do them to improve yourself. As long as there are enough people looking under every rock, again and again, someone somewhere is going to make the next useful discovery. It's a joy to be part of the process.

[Zero]

do you think this toy of mine has any chance of being relevant?

Yes, you're doing great Zero. The only thing that really matters though is whether or not it interests you. Don't ever do things to impress anyone else; just do them to improve yourself. As long as there are enough people looking under every rock, again and again, someone somewhere is going to make the next useful discovery. It's a joy to be part of the process.

I'll take care of every single word of it. I don't say "thank you" every time I'm receiving an answer, but it is always what I feel: thank you.

About "interesting me, yes this one does. It rings many bells, some of them spiritual, some of them computational, plus a possibility to make something that has a very personal visual impact.

As everything I do though, I already know I'll get bored as soon as it's almost done. I'm a terrible child

[Zero]

If you don't get it, then what don't you ask? And am I supposed to sell things? I don't think so. In fact, you're not answering my question.

And can also say, while I'm at it, that I'm almost about to get you out of my ignore-list. Maybe the crazy man of the village is still part of the village. He's one of its components. And your constant meaningless blah blah still have a value, after all. It is an extreme creativity layer in our proceedings, annoying sometimes, when you're anywhere anytime, but still source of inspirations, just like random shapes of clouds can be inspiring, for the man who has a look at them, during a quiet time. You inputs are valuable, I'm starting to understand that.

But my question was a real / serious one. Is this direction of an SRS/CA mix looks like a path that deserve to be explored, with the hope that it could be fertile, in terms of algorithms related to AI. And I was asking this question to people here who do create implemented tools, namely ivan.moony, infurl, korrelan, Art, Fred, and of course our elusive female engineer

You clicked the like button, then yeah, you're not on my ignore list anymore. But man, you're so... I don't even have a word for it. If ruebot you're reading this, maybe stop hitting him would be cool, and start considering his inputs for what they are: extremely creative and chaotic flows. Shitty, annoying, and don't have English words for it, but "rébarbatifs, casse-couilles, spam-likes". Yet, valuable.

[WriterOfMinds]

Hey big guys, do you think this toy of mine has any chance of being relevant?

I'm skeptical of any approach that relies too heavily on "emergence," because to me it reeks strongly of wishful thinking, or "magic."  "Let me just get these simple processes going and hope that something interesting and complex falls out!"  But this is a mere personal intuition; it's not as if I've tried this sort of approach and found out it didn't work.  So if you really want to know, the thing to do is finish it and find out.  AGI doesn't exist yet, so any advice that anyone gives you about how to reach it will be highly speculative.

Which brings me to my next thought: you don't seem to develop any of your projects beyond the "toy" stage.  Why?

[Zero]

Because I stop as soon as I understand they're not the right path.

You see, I'm victim of a delusion that I'm the one that will crack it open, and even though I understand this is a delusion, I'm still victim of it. Lifetime being short, I jump and jump again, like a terrible child.

My very name here, "Zero" might have been understood as a sign of weakness, a lack of self-esteem. On the contrary, something divided by zero equals infinity! "Neo" would have been a stupid pseudo. "Zero" came next.

I know that I'm mentally disturbed about this. I just hope I don't cause troubles to anyone here on the forums. If I can express my gentle madness here without hurting anyone, well I'm the happiest man on the face on the earth.

[Zero]

But hey, I could return the question! People like you, korrelan and infurl, have incredibly advanced pieces of softwares in your computers. Why don't you share them?