Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Adding probability doesn't eleminate math | 709 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

"A brain is just a stimulus-response associative processor..."

Authored by: jesse on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 07:05 AM EDT

I would accept that...

Now how about that maze following rat, as compaired to a maze following neural
net, and to a computer augmented by a living neural net...

Is it live?

The long term issue is: When is a robot not a robot?

And (even longer term): Can a robot claim independence?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Ahh, Azimov, what a legacy : ) n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 07:43 AM EDT

Adding probability doesn't eleminate math

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 12 2013 @ 04:38 PM EDT

Something I see almost everybody missing in this "math" discussion is
that adding probability doesn't stop it from being math. Repeatability is not a
valid constraint. You don't know in advance what the result of the actual
measurement will be, but that is not a problem for the math; there are math
tools for that.

And without knowing about probability you miss out on most of the last 100 years
of physics. (None of which is patentable)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )