You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
There is a limit to everything.
I found the problem with standard OOP:
OOP is invariant and is a natural property of Consciousness, but its implementation can have drawbacks.
There is a limit to everything.
I found the problem with standard OOP:
OOP is invariant and is a natural property of Consciousness, but its implementation can be flawed.
____________________________________________________________________________________
What is it invariant to?
Would it be better to define AI in terms of what we want to get out of it?
Yes, you're right.
I want to teach a computer system to model Objects.
Technically, Thinking is about reflecting and modelling the objects and relationships of Reality.
AI should replicate the work of Intelligence, which examines Reality objects, parses the data it receives from them, and reproduces their models within itself.
On the third point, Peter, I didn't expect from an apologist for writing everything on a global level in arrays. You have not variables in class fields, but containers, so you can add/remove them at runtime, and you've already been told above about related brakes. By the way, if written correctly, the brakes may be quite acceptable.
Peter, this must be something about deciphering the genetic code and shaping an object according to that code?
____________________________________________________________________________________
What is it invariant to?
OOP is a person's ability to link information into a hierarchical structure with a distribution of 'layers', from the general to the particular. This is the "invariance" of OOP. Implementation of OOP in the human brain and in a computer program is different.
Peter, this must be something about deciphering the genetic code and shaping an object according to that code?
Yes, I realized that properties can be added to Objects, but without updating the relationships with other properties and objects, such addition is meaningless. Structurally, each Object is integrated into the environment of other objects, and their relationships are complex and confusing. The standard OOP allows you to change object relationships by rewriting code and recompiling. And adding new properties "on the fly", does not change the structure of objects and the system retains its integrity or breaks. The system itself needs to change on the fly.
There is a new operator. This operator allows you to create a new object at runtime.
There are arrays of pointers to objects. These arrays allow you to put a pointer to any object into them.
Pointer arrays are themselves objects.
Now think about it and answer - is it possible or not to add properties to objects on the fly?