But if they can be expressed all in a common theoretical framework, then it is sometimes possible to compare them experimentaly within that framework. Here, theory and practice support each other, as they often do in science. Furthermore, experimental analysis, when well conducted, can exhibit unexpected behavior that may motivate better theoretical analysis. The kind of work people do can vary a lot, because people are fortunately very different, with a great variety of interests and technical abilities, thus complementing each other. They look at theoretical or practical questions raised by other people, or by themselves, and try to solve them, or get closer to a complete or partial solution. Other people will be better at structuring existing knowledge, and putting thing in relation, and then finding new questions to ask.

Nodes resemble neurons, while connections between nodes resemble synapses. Connectionist modeling therefore seems more “biologically plausible” than classical modeling. A connectionist model of a psychological phenomenon apparently captures how interconnected neurons might generate the phenomenon. It allows a potentially valuable role for both Turing-style models and neural networks, operating harmoniously at different levels of description (Marcus 2001; Smolensky 1988). A Turing-style model is higher-level, whereas a neural network model is lower-level. The neural network illuminates how the brain implements the Turing-style model, just as a description in terms of logic gates illuminates how a personal computer executes a program in a high-level programming language.

LDCs for Hamming errors have been studied extensively in the past few decades, where a major goal is to understand the amount of redundancy that is necessary and sufficient to decode from large amounts of error, with small query complexity. Despite exciting progress, we still don’t have satisfactory answers in several important parameter regimes. For example, in the case of 3-query LDCs, the gap between existing constructions and lower bounds is superpolynomial in the message length. In this work we study LDCs for insertion and deletion errors, called Insdel LDCs.

In this connection, it is also worth noting that classical computationalism and connectionist computationalism have their common origin in the work of McCulloch and Pitts. CCTM does not simply hold that the mind is like a computing system. Of course, the most familiar artificial computing systems are made from silicon chips or similar materials, whereas the human body is made from flesh and blood. But CCTM holds that this difference disguises a more fundamental similarity, which we can capture through a Turing-style computational model. We attain an abstract computational description that could be physically implemented in diverse ways (e.g., through silicon chips, or neurons, or pulleys and levers). CCTM holds that a suitable abstract computational model offers a literally true description of core mental processes.

Rumeley gave a deterministic and unconditional algorithm but in an almost polynomial time – it gave answers in NloglogN steps – while all the earlier deterministic and unconditional algorithms required exponential time. This was, however, much less efficient than the Miller-Rabin algorithm. Lenstra to yield the primality of a 100-digit number in a matter of seconds. The next big leap in primality testing came in 1986 with the work of S. Kilian who gave a randomised algorithm using some properties of a class of curves known as elliptic curves.

But their heart is in mathematics and they figured out a way of doing mathematics, and high-quality mathematics at that, staying in computer science. While Kayal had decided to remain in India, Saxena had wanted to go abroad. It is pleasantly ironical that he did not get a scholarship to do his Ph.D abroad at the university of his choice. Now, barely after one semester of their Ph.D, this work should qualify for their theses. The trick lay in not proving exactly the conjecture they had started out with but in constructing yet another modified polynomial and studying its algebraic properties. First, reduce the problem by projecting the polynomial down to a smaller domain of numbers.

CSA description does not explicitly mention semantic properties such as reference, truth-conditions, representational content, and so on. Structuralist computationalists need not assign representational content any important role within scientific psychology. On the other hand, structuralist computationalism does not preclude an important role for representational content. Proponents of formal syntactic description respond by citing implementation mechanisms. Externalist description of mental activity presupposes that suitable causal-historical relations between the mind and the external physical environment are in place.

This diagnosis indicates a less than fully realist attitude towards intentionality. In ordinary life, we frequently predict and explain behavior by invoking beliefs, desires, and other representationally contentful mental states. We identify these states through their how to use italki representational properties. When we say “Frank believes that Emmanuel Macron is French”, we specify the condition under which Frank’s belief is true . When we say “Frank wants to eat chocolate”, we specify the condition under which Frank’s desire is fulfilled .

In this paper we study the intrinsic tradeoff between the space complexity of the sketch and its estimation error in the random oracle model. We define a new measure of efficiency for cardinality estimators called the Fisher-Shannon number H/I. It captures the tension between the limiting Shannon entropy of the sketch and its normalized Fisher information , which characterizes the variance of a statistically efficient, asymptotically unbiased estimator.