Graphs and dimensions

This is from a program called graphthing which is available from the debian repositories. The specific graph is bipartite and is one that I wanted to analyze as it cannot be represented in 2d without a line crossing and I had satisfied my curiosity in my imagination , but I wanted to be sure that it was the same in simulation.

I discovered an interesting way of looking at things that involves sets and the character of sets.

The drawing left was done with Inkscape and took about 2 minutes. It represents a circuit to be modelled as an example using a matrix.

When used with E=IR it can be solved. That equation is a resolution of Maxwell's equations to an approximation of effect. It also combines the efforts of Gauss. I wonder if he knew that there is a magnetic field constant with that same name. Quite a coincidence.

AA
AB
BA
BB

This sequence above represents 2² as combinations and not dimensions. Also I am studying graphs with matrix manipulation and there is a correlation, as there is with transforms. The combinations of possibilities is A^P and so it is obvious that if you reassign as sets or lists that certain properties are exposed. It has something to do with Lie ( pronounced LEE, if you are English ) groups, and that is a person's name.

It does help to know these methods in the same way that knowing all aspects of the tools and plug-ins of gimp allows them to be recombined to create a new result or replicate the methods that another applies.

I am re-doing matrix math this year again and though I can use it, every time I go over it, I see a new relationship with another field or program. It is a rerun with the purpose of making the connection from A to B that could not be made where B did not yet exist. It is a lot easier as the concepts are so familiar now. Terminology can be like learning another language. It gives pause when operators are overloaded. Ax=b and U, L, NULL, S, I, I^-, T, .... It is all vectors and matrices so the letters mean various things as shorthand, like Singular, Upper-triangle, Identity ...

I could mean Identity and that can give a person pause until the context is resolved. Oh well, "je ne sais pas". Is that like IDK , which would be JNSP in French? Of course this whole thing can be interpreted in two ways.

The NULL space of reason

This image has an additional dimension add to the analysis and is rotated slighly to show that in perspective. The separation is more clear, but it resolves more easily than this to objects which can be identified by their character to be of a specific "nature". Fur or tree bark or other types of textures isolate themselves to texture spaces and once combined with the dimensional space they become separate objects in an image. In addition the conversion to a triangle based "triangle_strip" using the shading dimension projects a 3D structure which is the .obj file with a texture on the vertices and a normal to the surface. It should not surprise you at all that the data is a continuous spectrum as that is what it is. It is a representation of continuous color and as such is easily differentiable from other types of things which tend to cluster.

These images represent one aspect of dimensional extraction of images or anything actually that has properties. So, anything. Though this is a single aspect of the image it tells quite a bit. When it is combined with other dimensions it solves just like a linear equation in a matrix. When there are enough measurements to limit the dimensions it resolves to a solution. if x+y=10 and x+2y=22 then you have a solution. So it is with this. The more data dimensions that are added the greater the resolving power. It isn't an integer, but is an object space. In this image, it was created in InkScape and as such uses a very limited "random spread" of colors and it is very obvious that this image was computer generated just from the close spacing of the color vectors.

This is only one dimension of the analysis and even so it strips into parts so easily that any person could see that the elements separate to types. In this case it is like a matrix equation of two variables as I have only two major types of things in the image. An equation of two variables is solved with two equality relationships. Here the green section is associated with the sea floor and the yellow is the organism. So even though it is quantitatively imprecise , the two object "spaces" are easily identifiable as two distinct objects. In cases where the images are more of a composite it becomes an equation of more variables and requires more dimensions to "solve". In fact some images do not solve at all with this and in fact I look at some images on the Internet and the same is true, I say "What the hell is that." and some times I never know what it is and that is fine because not everything has meaning. In the image the shape and position of those curves tell me other things about the image, but that is incidental as isolating the two types of "things" is all that is necessary in this context.

In this image the decomposition is not as clear. However when the other dimensions are applied it resolves easily. This does make it clear that this method functions as easily as a matrix product and though it uses some unique methods it does resolve in exactly the same way when enough dimensions are used. These things are very much like matrix math without the obsession for perfection. There may never be a perfect answer. The image is more peoplish than fishy or catty and so I assume person and I could be wrong as it could be a cat dressed up as a fish dressed up as a person and so I am wrong about and so most of the time I am right and that is it, I play the odds to my favor and that is all I can do in a world of infinites upon infinites. The three elements in the graph are the white mark, the shaded green background and the peoplish mountain looking thing which includes hair eyes and skin and without more dimensions it is a thing like a set of frequencies that are merged to be speech, they don't look separate until you do Fourier analysis. I personally can see the two major underlying forms that are merged and the two are similar to the curves above. At first I did not see them, but after displaying them as they separate out with other dimensions it is an obvious merger of two major chords and one minor.

New dimensions from old, The magic lamp

The image links to the computer music composer and the music there is very good. The thing that got me is this image from that page and how it thinks. I am afraid that it is correct, as we speak, the concept of a natural born human as the epitome of thought, rationality and capability is crumbling and the extension of mind in the machines becomes the new something and I don't know what it is. I have been moving toward this and there is no way to choose some other path. I can now make programs that solve problems that I cannot approach with my mind alone. Using the computer as extension of my reach, an intellectual prosthesis to augment my limited mind and time.

This uses blender.

This is an image from what I started doing with AI and dimensions and there really is something there that defines thought itself. What will it mean when reason and decision becomes a calculator that passes us at every turn. I see it in my own work. I create a program that creates programs and then it teaches me new things. This could be very entertaining.

If that is not scary enough, consider that I could then make the mind that makes the program that makes the music. The extension is only natural. It is recursion and by recursion the process expands. Below all of this is a level that is the ⌊floor⌋ on which it all stands. It seems to me that logic was improperly defined from its origin with the scholars 2,000 years ago and that it requires a new framework to actually complete this circle. It is there and soon it will be known and like the other odd consequence of this strange new world, it is bound to be an E ticket attraction. What happens when these things like the speech in video detection and integration with graphics and DNA combines with music and meta code generation. It is escalating. Once I think of the combinations in escalating factorial synergy it becomes prompt critical intellectually in a way similar to its namesake.

Sense, anti-sense, nonsense

template < class T, class Allocator = allocator > class vector;

Mutant nonsense.

That probably doesn't make sense to many people. I understand it because it describes something. The reason I am considering this is because I have developed a language of dimensions and analysis. If a particular object has dimensions(n) which are labeled with names like "x", "red", "texture scaly", "fuzziness", ... and I specify that I would go to dimension position (2,3,4,5,9,1) and rotate 3⇒7 by .1 then it would make perfect sense to me, and the result would be understandable in context, however the context is very complex. In genetics they use the term sense and anti-sense strands ( using 5' and 3' orientation of base sequences ) of DNA as coding and non-coding, which is not always true, but then what is -absolutely true- in an infinite universe.

It seems to me that the structure of knowledge is very much like code dependency or any other dependency. There is an order to the understanding and the complete concept is built upon the understanding of the individual parts. It could be said that a Japanese language statement corresponds exactly to a specific English statement and it becomes semantics. The result is that many things are duplicated in unique context that when decoded becomes the same exact thing expressed by a new path. An example in dimensional space of concepts is go left 2 in dimension 1, go right 2 in dimension 2, then go right 2 in dimension 1. The net effect is to cancel the travel in dimension 1, which then means we have taken a different dimensional context, and arrived at the same concept. This seems to be the basic underlying mechanism and by translating in these symbolic dimensions, it is possible to translate ( hence the name translate and rotate ) the meaning of A and B, though they originate in completely different context.

Here is an example of where complexity extends so far that it confounds the mind to envelop the process, and yet I can easily move about in this n-D space and end up with an answer that makes complete anti-sense to me.

☺(Unicode: ☺ #263A)

It seems that all understanding can ultimately be integrated in this dependent dimensional space as fairly simple descriptive elements. The net result is that I can define a thinking relationship to extend the concepts and simply present the fact that (unk) solves (unk). The resultant path dimension data can be instantiated in a biological organism to be knowledge that exists at birth. It is beginning to make sense how an ant, dolphin, octopus ... can be born with a certain understanding, that really has nothing to do with our context and the "emotional" ( motional ) understanding is able to be translated from one organism to another or one person or personality. It is very interesting and I expect this to be more clear as I apply it, like any language, that requires std::cout<<"CONTEXT"; to be understood. So it is possible to be born with knowledge that could be quite complex and that would seem to be a better way than spending a life time to find out that Mickey Mouse™ isn't a real a mouse. Of course you couldn't do that as your mind would be filled with holes where the copyright attorneys burned patches of information out , as they own the knowing©. Actually they couldn't do that as they would have to be able to understand how to do it and since they burned the understanding out of everybody, nobody knows how to do "burning minds"© anymore.

I don't know where this came from, but it has something to do with Barbara Streisand in some aspect of her magnetic personality.

The net result of all of this is that I can project in these various dimensions along vectors that describe anything and it relates to how one might do matrix manipulation of OpenGL objects or use linear equation matrix programming in Matlab™ to transform a system. It is reasonable to assume that I can actually project into artistic space a concept that is an image, movie or any extrapolation of human / non-human creativity to produce that which is entertainment. If the process of meta projection is known then the "art" which is generated becomes a process which generates the forms which interest the observer. It does have relationship to the concept of meta code generation. It is said that programming is a human talent and yet I can get my AIs to do it. In this same way I can meta extend it in a complete loop, where the code itself directs the coder. There is a point where coherence of this defines the nature of thought and understanding itself. Organisms are generated from their DNA and then shaped by their experience with the methods at their command. It might be said that by articulating this mechanism in a more effective way that you may have obsoleted the biological form itself. It depends on the context. If the organism I create is an extension of my own understanding and inherently context linked to my being in ways that are not able to be understood without this extension, then it becomes. To some extent I personally find the activity of some people to be utterly transparent and predictable. It remains to be seen what perspective develops if all reason and extension becomes transparent. Another step on the way to infinity. One small step for motey , one giant leap into the unknown.

Many people would underestimate the transparency of their action due to the fact that they have no context or information to understand how it can be so transparent. It is easy to see that a child is transparent in their motives and in that same way the complexity could seem to confound for those who use it to deceive. To a large extent the motive and action methods of many individuals that are driven by greed or self aggrandizement makes them more transparent as they have a simple vector and though they may conceal the path to their desire ( another Hannibal Lecter quote "Desperately random" ) ( or even "Follow the money"), one only needs to wait at the object of their desire and they will arrive. I think it was Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter who said:

"And how do we begin to covet, Clarice".

Flutterby Effect

I have discovered a method path which creates [ real & models & images ] of butterflies and I am projecting a highly likely association with other biological forms with a simple algorithm. The method is about as complex as my opengl model design display. It is a pattern under life and by using my n-D software, I was able to identify the controlling elements and devise a software that emulated the complete genotype to phenotype expression. I have worked from the level of planarian before and there are several interacting concepts. One is the physics of space and the enzyme kinetics. Different controlling factors dominate in different stages. The differentiation of butterfly species wings is one that has a very simple attractor framework and is easily modified to generate any number of possible forms.

With just two controlling factors I can generate the form (Of the wings, not body (separate issue worm)). It should then be easy to retrofit the DNA which controls this expression. It was not completely clear to me before how these mechanisms could generate the form and it required a bit of AI induced perspective to understand.

The software does not associate real systems names with the models as yet and I need to add that as I go along. In this case it is a thing (DNA) that moderates another thing (RNA) that moderates another thing (POLYAA) that modifies many different things , including feedback (DNA, RNA, POLYAA). The labels are mine and the model is just generic and underlying relationships are purely relational from the form itself. I would assume that this same method could be applied analogously in many different places. It appears to me to be foundational and descriptive of form itself in the way it is expressed. At the least it is a model technique which allows me to create any number of complete biological models from very little information.

I am reasonably certain that below this in form is a temporal fixated chaotic attractor which defines the basic form and as such is not so much a mechanism as a vast rotating chaotic n-D storm that is fixed in a time to become the product organic structure.

ADDED: I should have guessed this considering some implementations of problem analysis. How do you create a complex organism from a set of elements? The answer is that you cycle through the factorial expansion of relationships and stop at a pointer in the expansion. I can factorially combine any number of variables and simply select with a single temporal value. It explains why certain attractors of form do not branch to seven eyes and tails and gills as the entire process is a form of factorial interaction using cyclic recursion. It is like a reverse Fourier construction of a set. You simply modulate every possible frequency from a starting point and if you use the same random number seed ( analogy ) the nth random number is a frog. The (n+1)th is probably a non-viable organism. It would make sense as the gestation period of an insect and a mammal would reflect the positional placement in a larger decision space. It would explain how a simple set of genetic elements could account for such a widely varied outcome. It is said that apes and humans vary little in their DNA and actually if you are looking at the process in this way it could have a virtually infinite form by changing one factor, which is the temporal pointer in a factorial set.

This consistent with a system which is evolutionary and self determinant. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in the prime selector could technically lead to a new species. It has been argued that an agent of omniscient origin would be required to account for the existence of life this complex and this seems to answer how it is possible to have such a high degree of complexity.

The nature of dimensional interaction is such that each new factor adds a new infinity to the outcomes. Just like tRNA and the fact that it is instantiated multiple times in the DNA, this particular method must be well entrenched and should be obvious to spot. I could guess that the series of long repeats serves as an entropic flywheel that winds down to select the form that will become. This seems to have a high degree of correlation with effect from my experience.

More dimensions

Here I have added dimensions and the ability to select a texture group and associate that in space with a projected image. I have also made a game world like SuperTuxKart, where tunnels are selectors in object association and property space. As an example I can enter an arena where all images in a certain scope are located and take a tunnel which selects only png format and in that arena select images of nature and in each arena is also the return tunnel that removes a certain restriction. Like Half Life, I can get out of the cart and adjust gate / tunnel parameters and thus select within different set attribute scales, such as a simple texture object screen of the data.I just thought of something, I could have a ray gun that tunnels into different attributes like Portal or Stargate that allows me to dissolve walls between sets. This could be fun and useful.

It is my intent to keep this completely compatible with KDE plasmoid widgets and WebGL, so that it can be a widget that can be attached to the KDE desktop. I am less familiar with Firefox add-ons and so I best study that now so that if there is a chance to make it compatible on all three fronts, then I will.

Some of my intent is to allow me to navigate directories in my backups and clean out duplicates to make the system run faster. Thus I am planning to add an option to allow me to do "shooting" from the vehicle that "kills" the files to the trashcan and then if I shoot the wrong thing, I can still recover the data. I am going to attempt to make data associations or dependencies observable in the file structure also.

There is just no way to take a 4 dimensional thing like the selection game and demonstrate it as a flat image or even a moving image. It is n-space and without some personal context as to which tunnels were taken, it is just tunnels.

As an aside, I do believe that video games that teach people to excel by not reflexively dodging moving objects directed at them is damaging to the survival of the person in a real world.

The sliding adjustment of n-dimensional space as tunnels or portals to object categories is a bit of a mind f4r in practice and reminds me of the first time I was in the "twisty little passages that all look alike" in the old text based Adventure game. XYZZY It has application for me in genetics, protein models, genotyping, universal construction, chemistry, information technology, networks, and particle or n-spacial physics also. It is perhaps the goal I was attempting to achieve all along with antfarmgl. It is informative and is bound to be lots of fun. Another thing now is to have sounds coming from the caves / tunnels / portals / that add additional imformation as you approach the gate. Oh my, I also decided I can change the textures around the gates to represent what is beyond, like hazard strips or little icons on the edges that represent the category shift. This is looking better all the time, I must complete this.

This is really going to be lots of fun as I can have a number on the tunnel that tells me how many objects are in the set that connects to that tunnel. (Later I thought I could make the tunnel size reflect the number of elements in that set.) It can also allow me to traverse my code that generates the system itself. Oh recursion, what a great technique, if nature weren't the first implementer of that in life, it would be one of those great technology algorithms.

This is another set that may show more effectively what is happening. I am also interacting this with gimp as a filter and so I can select with an object space with other gimp tools and move that back and forth to the n-D spaces. While looking at this I realized how to implement two more dimensions in the representation and also project the images in three dimensional relief.

This is fantastic and I don't even know how I got to this. I was trying to learn OpenGl 6 years ago and this would have been impossible. I have really learned and learned how to apply a lot of things in the last 8 years. This is some really strange stuff and when you start adding partial differentials and manifolds or even three space manifolds and matrix manipulations, it really gets spooky and IMHO very entertaining and informative. Looking at the internet with n-D glasses is very entertaining and informative, in fact, more fun than I have had with Portal, HalfLife and Fear combined. This is definitely way beyond the representation of ontologies and associations. It reveals some relationships of information that has never been represented before. Spreadsheets and graphs are neat images, but they express so little of the infinite interaction of object ,variable and property space. I just thought about making bots that roam around in the n-space in carts also and they could be driven by my meta code generator to have "personalities" and skill sets. That would be so odd. I can move about in n-space and see the bots searching for something to use to extend themselves. I think I will try and finish this tonight to a stand alone application as it would be way too entertaining and certainly would uncover some new techniques as I implement.

I am using images to represent the concept, but that is not all of what this does. The dimensions are boundless and they can be the dimension of user handles, IP address, physical location, DNA, speech pattern, homonyms, are actually any attribute which can be applied to any set of data. In conjunction with the "elvi", which I use as a generic term for my utilities which can search the Internet, it creates an infinitely dimensional space that flows in time and is like the chaos that is infinite possibility and yet there is a way to traverse the spaces and get meaning from the massive amounts of unconnected data. I want to run this against the Hubble telescope data ( for one ) and see what drops out.

Matrix relationships

This serves as a reference for me to focus on the row and column properties to identify their underlying relations. It includes column vector solution. It also allows me to apply some SVG skills and extend the skill set a little bit.

All the tools are approaching a merger, so this will merge with latex, openGL, blender, .obj and Python make-ant. I need to add some extra attachment glue so they interact properly and autonomously.

The image links to http://moteyalpha.googlepages.com/MatrixRef.svg which allows use as SVG object for other purposes or personal use.

This is the 'SAGE' mathematics package solution for the case here for example.

A = Matrix([[2,-1],[-1,2]])
Y=vector([0,3])
X=A.solve_right(Y)
X

Which is:, of course, (1,2).

Topless Dominatrix

Toeplitz domain Matrix, guess I heard that wrong.

Walkabout among decision trees

I have finished the matrix math level of tree investigation and I am up one node. I seems a bit convolved and poorly explained by most, but I get the relationships now. Any array can be identified in the computer by something like A[i][j] ==. So any element of the resultant matrix can be specified as an equation and the process can be viewed by what it does. I have used matrices extensively, and I can just punch them into my calculator to find a solution. I wanted to know why as well as how. Now I have a sense of what an Identity matrix really means in the same way that I look at a Rubik's cube and can see the relationships of sets, order, association, faces, vectors, methods, and colors which define their interaction to produce products and precursor states.

It is somewhat anti-climactic, as I imagined it to be very profound and in a way it is just shorthand.

Something else to consider. Why do we define things as squares to begin with? I could just as well say, "How many circles fit in a square?", as opposed to how many squares fit in a circle. Why choose a square as a geometric norm in a world of curves and circles? Thus I might say that the area of a circle is 1, and the area of a square around it is 1.273239... ( a new magic number! ).

WARNING: Horrible pun alert. Is a spammer, a dada miner?

Reductionism matrix

Reductionism is defined at wiki.In this case I am just taking the simplest possible case of a matrix and its solutions and process. A matrix continues to expand in dimensions and this might seem absurd, but this is dimension 1 and it is a point solution, At ( one dimension - 1 intersecting point), (two dimensions - 2 intersecting lines),(three dimensions, 3 intersecting planes), etc. I suppose an intersecting point is actually absurd, but taking an engine apart to see how it operates is just as valid when the engine is the process of math. I suppose it makes sense when all the factors are included and it is the intersection of one more thing, which is the set of ℜ numbers.

I am just a cave man, standing at the entrance to the cave making howling sounds to imitate a wolf so the others will get the association that the wolf is at the door. Communication by association. Context. I hope they come and help as it is gain to no one to be divided like sheep and killed one by one. Learn from the wolf's ways to be one humanity. I will mark the wall with a red dripping

VvvV
.  .
^^^^

to let them know, if I am gone that I was taken by the 'red tooth and claw'.

re-Learning the basics

Version 3.Ok, now I admit I have gone overboard with the layout of this, so I will quit after 1 more. I have the concept wrong associatively and need to fix it. It is conceptually wrong ( but very artistic ) so I will fix it tomorrow and add the code that solves the Matrix, the vector cross products done in 'c' || Python + openGL, reduction, substitutions and 3D perspective of the intersections of planes ( with normals and different textures for each plane ).

This top one is probably better as it highlights the association of origins of the values and how this might relate to solutions. It uses '\bmatrix' to enclose and '\color{color}'. So the equations that go with this are:
[ 2x  - y       =  0] ,
[  -x+2y-3z = -1],
[      -  y+4z =  4].
So they could be viewed as 3space vectors.

I use matrix calculations all the time for openGL and other situations, and I know how to use them, but do I understand what it means? I guess I have answered that question for myself. By going back over basics again and again, at some point something clicks and you can say, Aha! that is the relationship and if I were completely skilled at AI, I could code that into a neural net of some fashion. I am not at that level yet.

I just completed nearly 110 hours of lectures on subjects ranging from astrophysics of neutron stars, thermodynamics, angular momentum, programming algorithms, hacking, assembly, calculus, trigonometry, Fourier, topology and numerous other subjects from Academic Earth, and other places. I am WAY smarter than I was a week ago and also see that I have plenty of room to improve.

Somehow today, the calculus, vectors, matrix math, and my experience connected and now I have gained from that association too.

I really don't like Lisp as a language, but some of the concepts are very interesting and I may try to lay them out in a 'C' structure for testing. Some new things I learned about PHP and HTML and TCP protocols are going to be a great advantage if I can apply them. My personal Wiki is getting very cluttered and I may have to make some design changes ( in Zim ) that incorporate HASH or SQL or trees or associative context switching to make it easier to use.

I used NRZ and NRZI and numerous other technologies of compression over the years and I guess I always focused on how do I use them and how do I rate them, but never really understood the underlying things like "entropy of information". I still don't, but I am beginning to see how this relates to real entropy as defined by thermodynamics.

To be consistent, I am including the La^Tex in the post, but in the future I will include it in the image mouse over to reduce clutter.

\mathcal{A}=\begin{vmatrix}
  +2 & -1 &  0\! \\
 -1 &  +2 & -3 \\
  0\! & -1 &  +4 
\end{vmatrix}
=
\begin{vmatrix}
x \\
y \\
z
\end{vmatrix}
\begin{vmatrix}
0\! \\
-1 \\
+4
\end{vmatrix}

Matrix of my stupidity

Generated with the La^Tex:

\underbrace {\mathbf{X} = \begin{bmatrix}
\frac{2 n}{r-l} & 0 & \frac{r+l}{r-l} & 0 
\\ 0 & \frac{2 n}{t-b} & \frac{t+b}{t-b} & 0 
\\ 0 & 0 & \frac{-(f+n)}{f-n} & \frac{-2fn}{f-n} 
\\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 \end{bmatrix}} 
_{If(and-only-If)\rightarrowtail l\neq r,t\neq b,n\neq f}

    I was doing some compiling and code development today. The above matrix equation might seem simple to some like Brian Paul but it can be difficult at times. I learned some new things about file formats and the command "readelf" which is fairly versatile. I spent about two hours in confusion hell trying to understand why a particular external did not show up in my linked libraries. Usually it makes me feel better to finally understand these things, but when it takes that long to resolve, I just feel tired. It all stemmed from a single line of code that is below.

XTestFakeKeyEvent(dpy, KEYCODE_ALT_LEFT, KEY_DOWN, CurrentTime);

I also learned the model ".obj" format well enough to edit it by hand. I found some very neat demos with glm. Something else I learned was a trick to understanding solid shadows, which is much like looking at the world from the perspective of the light and marking everything it "sees" as visible. Another thing by Da Vici on light was entertaining as he studied how reflected light from surfaces could make areas that would seem to be dark "logically" were actually brighter than a directly illuminated object.

I also did some study of wave mechanics and discovered a very interesting fact about waves ( and how it applies to matter, momentum and energy). I also did some geometry on pyramids and area that was designed to deal with the integration and surface in new ways.

I suppose I can take some joy in the fact that if I were to compare my understanding to what I could easily deal with at 17, it would be the difference between a stone and an eagle. Understanding does not come as easy or quickly as I would have imagined at 17. I seriously thought that if I applied myself for a couple years that I would have a perfect grasp of all science. How silly is the youth and the old man, both.

I also did some study of natural language processing and AI systems.Related to that is the creation of a system that can actually create "theories" of how the universe works from data at Wired. There are many people who talk about singularity or the advance of machine intelligence in a detached way, but it has been my opinion, and remains so, that the actuality of a machine that is vastly more intelligent than a person is going to be a really depressing thing for a lot of scientists.