Communities and Collections

Posts

Post has attachment

Public

Personal Post

Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Public

**On Highway 420**

On Highway 420 Intro This post is now over 8 years late. There are a lot of things I have not done, that should have been done. It was the end of summer 2009, maybe fall had started, I can't quit remember. We were on highway 420. It was a clear, sunny day ...

Add a comment...

Post has shared content

We are happy to announce the ANN-SNN conversion toolbox. Check it out here.

http://sensors.ini.uzh.ch/news_page/snn-conversion-2017.html

http://sensors.ini.uzh.ch/news_page/snn-conversion-2017.html

Add a comment...

Post has shared content

**Vladimir Voevodsky, 1966 - 2017**

This mathematician died last week. He won the Fields Medal in 2002 for proving the

**Milnor conjecture**in a branch of algebra known as algebraic K-theory. He continued to work on this subject until he helped prove the more general

**Bloch-Kato conjecture**in 2010.

Proving these results — which are too technical to easily describe to nonmathematicians! — required him to develop a dream of Grothendieck: the theory of

**motives**. Very roughly, this is a way of taking the space of solutions of a collection of polynomial equations and chopping it apart into building blocks. But the process of 'chopping up', and also these building blocks, called 'motives', are very abstract — nothing simple or obvious.

It's a bit like how a proton is made of quarks. You never actually see a quark in isolation, so you have to think very hard to realize they are there at all. But once you know this, a lot of things become clear.

This is wonderful, profound mathematics. But in the process of proving the Bloch-Kato conjecture, Voevodsky became tired of this stuff. He wanted to do something more useful... and more ambitious:

*It was very difficult. In fact, it was 10 years of technical work on a topic that did not interest me during the last 5 of these 10 years. Everything was done only through willpower.*

*Since the autumn of 1997, I already understood that my main contribution to the theory of motives and motivic cohomology was made. Since that time I have been very conscious and actively looking for. I was looking for a topic that I would deal with after I fulfilled my obligations related to the Bloch-Kato hypothesis.*

*I quickly realized that if I wanted to do something really serious, then I should make the most of my accumulated knowledge and skills in mathematics. On the other hand, seeing the trends in the development of mathematics as a science, I realized that the time is coming when the proof of yet another conjecture won't have much of an effect. I realized that mathematics is on the verge of a crisis, or rather, two crises.*

*The first is connected with the separation of “pure” and applied mathematics. It is clear that sooner or later there will be a question about why society should pay money to people who are engaged in things that do not have any practical applications.*

*The second, less obvious, is connected with the complication of pure mathematics, which leads to the fact that, sooner or later, the articles will become too complicated for detailed verification and the process of accumulating undetected errors will begin. And since mathematics is a very deep science, in the sense that the results of one article usually depend on the results of many and many previous articles, this accumulation of errors for mathematics is very dangerous.*

*So, I decided, you need to try to do something that will help prevent these crises. For the first crisis, this meant that it was necessary to find an applied problem that required for its solution the methods of pure mathematics developed in recent years or even decades.*

He looked for such a problem. He studied biology and found an interesting candidate. He worked on it very hard, but then decided he'd gone down a wrong path:

*Since childhood I have been interested in natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology), as well as in the theory of computer languages, and since 1997, I have read a lot on these topics, and even took several student and post-graduate courses. In fact, I “updated” and deepened the knowledge that had to a very large extent. All this time I was looking for that I recognized open problems that would be of interest to me and to which I could apply modern mathematics.*

*As a result, I chose, I now understand incorrectly, the problem of recovering the history of populations from their modern genetic composition. I took on this task for a total of about two years, and in the end, already by 2009, I realized that what I was inventing was useless. In my life, so far, it was, perhaps, the greatest scientific failure. A lot of work was invested in the project, which completely failed. Of course, there was some benefit, of course — I learned a lot of probability theory, which I knew badly, and also learned a lot about demography and demographic history.*

But he bounced back! He came up with a new approach to the foundations of mathematics, and helped organize a team at the Institute of Advanced Studies at Princeton to develop it further. This approach is now called

**homotopy type theory**or

**univalent foundations**. It's fundamentally different from set theory. It treats the fundamental concept of

*equality*in a brand new way! And it's designed to be done with the help of computers.

It seems he started down this new road when Carlos Simpson pointed out a serious mistake in a paper he'd written.

*I think it was at this moment that I largely stopped doing what is called “curiosity-driven research” and started to think seriously about the future. I didn’t have the tools to explore the areas where curiosity was leading me and the areas that I considered to be of value and of interest and of beauty.*

*So I started to look into what I could do to create such tools. And it soon became clear that the only long-term solution was somehow to make it possible for me to use computers to verify my abstract, logical, and mathematical constructions. The software for doing this has been in development since the sixties. At the time, when I started to look for a practical proof assistant around 2000, I could not find any. There were several groups developing such systems, but none of them was in any way appropriate for the kind of mathematics for which I needed a system.*

*When I first started to explore the possibility, computer proof verification was almost a forbidden subject among mathematicians. A conversation about the need for computer proof assistants would invariably drift to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (which has nothing to do with the actual problem) or to one or two cases of verification of already existing proofs, which were used only to demonstrate how impractical the whole idea was. Among the very few mathematicians who persisted in trying to advance the field of computer verification in mathematics during this time were Tom Hales and Carlos Simpson. Today, only a few years later, computer verification of proofs and of mathematical reasoning in general looks completely practical to many people who work on univalent foundations and homotopy type theory.*

*The primary challenge that needed to be addressed was that the foundations of mathematics were unprepared for the requirements of the task. Formulating mathematical reasoning in a language precise enough for a computer to follow meant using a foundational system of mathematics not as a standard of consistency to establish a few fundamental theorems, but as a tool that can be employed in everyday mathematical work. There were two main problems with the existing foundational systems, which made them inadequate. Firstly, existing foundations of mathematics were based on the languages of predicate logic and languages of this class are too limited. Secondly, existing foundations could not be used to directly express statements about such objects as, for example, the ones in my work on 2-theories.*

*Still, it is extremely difficult to accept that mathematics is in need of a completely new foundation. Even many of the people who are directly connected with the advances in homotopy type theory are struggling with this idea. There is a good reason: the existing foundations of mathematics – ZFC and category theory – have been very successful. Overcoming the appeal of category theory as a candidate for new foundations of mathematics was for me personally the most challenging.*

Homotopy type theory is now a vital and exciting area of mathematics. It's far from done, and to make it live up to Voevodsky's dreams will require brand new ideas – not just incremental improvements, but actual sparks of genius.

I only met him a few times, but as far as I can tell Voevodsky was a completely unpretentious person. You can see that in the picture here.

He was also a very complex person. For example, you might not guess that he took great photos of wildlife:

https://vividha.livejournal.com/photo/

You also might not guess at this side of him:

*In 2006-2007 a lot of external and internal events happened to me, after which my point of view on the questions of the “supernatural” changed significantly. What happened to me during these years, perhaps, can be compared most closely to what happened to Karl Jung in 1913-14. Jung called it “confrontation with the unconscious”. I do not know what to call it, but I can describe it in a few words. Remaining more or less normal, apart from the fact that I was trying to discuss what was happening to me with people whom I should not have discussed it with, I had in a few months acquired a very considerable experience of visions, voices, periods when parts of my body did not obey me, and a lot of incredible accidents. The most intense period was in mid-April 2007 when I spent 9 days (7 of them in the Mormon capital of Salt Lake City), never falling asleep for all these days.*

*Almost from the very beginning, I found that many of these phenomena (voices, visions, various sensory hallucinations), I could control. So I was not scared and did not feel sick, but perceived everything as something very interesting, actively trying to interact with those “beings” in the auditorial, visual and then tactile spaces that appeared around me (by themselves or by invoking them). I must say, probably, to avoid possible speculations on this subject, that I did not use any drugs during this period, tried to eat and sleep a lot, and drank diluted white wine.*

*Another comment: when I say “beings”, naturally I mean what in modern terminology are called complex hallucinations. The word “beings” emphasizes that these hallucinations themselves “behaved”, possessed a memory independent of my memory, and reacted to attempts at communication. In addition, they were often perceived in concert in various sensory modalities. For example, I played several times with a (hallucinated) ball with a (hallucinated) girl — and I saw this ball, and felt it with my palm when I threw it.*

*Despite the fact that all this was very interesting, it was very difficult. It happened for several periods, the longest of which lasted from September 2007 to February 2008 without breaks. There were days when I could not read, and days when coordination of movements was broken to such an extent that it was difficult to walk.*

*I managed to get out of this state due to the fact that I forced myself to start math again. By the middle of spring 2008 I could already function more or less normally and even went to Salt Lake City to look at the places where I wandered, not knowing where I was, in the spring of 2007.*

In short, he was a genius akin to Cantor or Grothendieck, at times teetering on the brink of sanity, yet gripped by an immense desire for beauty and clarity, engaging in struggles that gripped his whole soul. From the fires of this volcano, truly original ideas emerge.

This last quote, and the first few quotes, are from some interviews in Russian done by done by Roman Mikhailov, which +Mike Stay pointed out to me. I used Google Translate and polished the results a bit:

http://web.archive.org/web/20170826035052/http://baaltii1.livejournal.com/198675.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20120713082116/http://baaltii1.livejournal.com/200269.html

The quote about the origins of 'univalent foundations' comes from Voevodsky's nice essay here:

https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2014/voevodsky-origins

The photograph of Voevodsky is from +Andrej Bauer's website:

http://www.andrej.com/mathematicians/

To learn about the Bloch-Kato conjecture, start here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_residue_isomorphism_theorem

Or ask me! I don't understand this stuff very well, but I enjoy trying to learn things.

To learn homotopy type theory, try this great free book:

https://homotopytypetheory.org/book/

Add a comment...

Post has shared content

Berthelot, Tom Schumm and Metz (Google) generate amazingly good faces using a novel GAN, called BEGAN. BEGAN uses the Wasserstein distance and is an auto-encoder based GAN. BEGAN has a reasonably simple architecture, provides an approximate convergence measure and has fast and stable training:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1703.10717v1

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/1703.10717v1

Add a comment...

Hello All,

I am doing a presentation on Thursday about Neuromorphic Engineering for my Neural Networks class. No one there knows anything about it.

I have as my primary source to explain it is Rahul Sarpeshkars 'Ultra Low Power Bioelectronics' ISBN 987-0-521-85727-7. It is from 2010. Is there another source I should look at? Is there new, significant discoveries since then that I need to add?

Also, I need to tie this in with artificial neural networks. The papers I found were primarily for deep learning. Can anyone recommend some good papers showing the benefits of neuromorphic approach for ANNs generally?

Thank You

I am doing a presentation on Thursday about Neuromorphic Engineering for my Neural Networks class. No one there knows anything about it.

I have as my primary source to explain it is Rahul Sarpeshkars 'Ultra Low Power Bioelectronics' ISBN 987-0-521-85727-7. It is from 2010. Is there another source I should look at? Is there new, significant discoveries since then that I need to add?

Also, I need to tie this in with artificial neural networks. The papers I found were primarily for deep learning. Can anyone recommend some good papers showing the benefits of neuromorphic approach for ANNs generally?

Thank You

Post has shared content

Public

Google publishes hundreds of research papers each year. Publishing is important to us; it enables us to collaborate and share ideas with, as well as learn from, the broader scientific community. Submissions are often made stronger by the fact that ideas have been tested through real product implementation by the time of publication.

Add a comment...

Post has shared content

Public

Add a comment...

Post has shared content

Public

**An Ex-NASA Chief is Making Chips That Use The Same Biological Principles As The Brain**

http://bit.ly/2c8O67a

Add a comment...

Post has shared content

Public

I'll like to share a nice demo of a DL classifier running on a Nvidia Jetson TK1 for object recognition in (nearly) real time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf4z8ROfn_k

Add a comment...

Wait while more posts are being loaded