Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Stub. For the moment just for providing a place to record this reference:
added these references on the learning algorithm as analogous to the AdS/CFT correspondence:
Yi-Zhuang You, Zhao Yang, Xiao-Liang Qi, Machine Learning Spatial Geometry from Entanglement Features, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045153 (2018) (arxiv:1709.01223)
W. C. Gan and F. W. Shu, Holography as deep learning, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, no. 12, 1743020 (2017) (arXiv:1705.05750)
J. W. Lee, Quantum fields as deep learning (arXiv:1708.07408)
Koji Hashimoto, Sotaro Sugishita, Akinori Tanaka, Akio Tomiya, Deep Learning and AdS/CFT, Phys. Rev. D 98, 046019 (2018) (arxiv:1802.08313)
I never got round to looking at
What I don’t understand yet in HSTT 18 is where the non-linear activiation functions are in the story, i.e. how is what they have different from a discretized solution of a differential equation. But I don’t really have time to look into this properly.
Added two more category-theoretic treatments
David Spivak, Learners’ languages, (arXiv:2103.01189)
G.S.H. Cruttwell, Bruno Gavranović, Neil Ghani, Paul Wilson, Fabio Zanasi, Categorical Foundations of Gradient-Based Learning, (arXiv:2103.01931)
Removed the redirect to ’machine learning’, as this is far more general.
Added two more category-theoretic treatments
David Spivak, Learners’ languages, (arXiv:2103.01189)
G.S.H. Cruttwell, Bruno Gavranović, Neil Ghani, Paul Wilson, Fabio Zanasi, Categorical Foundations of Gradient-Based Learning, (arXiv:2103.01931)
Removed the redirect to ’machine learning’, as this is far more general.
Sorry for raising a trivial point on formatting:
In a reference, let’s not have a comma before the parenthesis with the arXiv number, it doesn’t seem to be needed. What do you think?
But I would always punctuate after a title
or something like that.
I see. That reminds me that we should use Richard’s new bibtex-like functionality to harmonize formatting. Maybe once that is a little more convenient to use: I just tried to offer it the bibtex data as produced by the arXiv
@misc{spivak2021learners,
title={Learners' languages},
author={David I. Spivak},
year={2021},
eprint={2103.01189},
archivePrefix={arXiv},
primaryClass={math.CT}
}
but it does not swallow that.
Yes, it only accepts the ’article’ document type for now. But completely agree this is exactly the kind of thing the bibliography is for :-)! I need to complete the ability to edit references in the bibliography, and then I will add support for all the common document types. Have had to focus on other things in the nLab software recently, but I’ll work on this when I have a chance.
Thanks. In fact article
would be more sensible. To refer to an arXiv preprint as a “miscellaneous” reference is a weird anachronism!
So I am happy to stick with your (currently) supported fields!
But when I go to the edit pane you made, all I get to see is a big white box and no indication what to do.
If you could just make the edit pane show a rudimentary template of fields into which the user could then type their data, that would already get us started!
I will indeed add something like this, but have not had a chance yet. Am prioritising the fundamental functionality first; I wouldn’t be averse to adding something sooner, but I need to think it through a bit (I’d rather not put in place some quick hack that people get used to, which later causes problems!).
For example, I think we probably should stick to BibTex’s convention of having article
only refer to published articles, because this allows validation: we can require that a journal, etc, is given, and in fact such a requirement is already implemented. Of course we could make up our own new document type such as ’preprint’ or something (but allow use of ’misc’ or ’unpublished’, converting to ’preprint’ behind the scenes if for example the arXiv field is present).
1 to 13 of 13