Representation of an object in programming. - page 12
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
Peter, discover UML(https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/UML)
What you are trying to say "has already been stolen before you" :-)
Already wrote to him about it) Two years ago)
Form is as much an attribute of objects as processes or states and is essentially just a set of physical components (particles, for example) that an object possesses and which bring their own parameters (x,y,z,...) to its set.
It is roughly like this.
Particulars are better to be removed. Their presence indicates a weak elaboration of the concept - here we have natural numbers and numbers 3, 5, 9.
Реter Konow #:
2. The question of processing power has not yet been considered, although it has crossed my mind. I don't know yet how resource consumption will grow. I think it will all depend on the complexity of the generated programs and, of course, at what point we will hit the ceiling.
3. The question " How to formulate the task for its software solution " has no answer yet. It is too early. The practical application lies ahead. At the moment I am concentrating on the realization of the idea of a fast construction of the object content by a program.
*Augmented:
Slightly wrong answer to question about computational complexity confusing it with "power" though in principle answer may be left unchanged because computational complexity "obeys" computational power. And also the approach to the problem, of course.
2. this question is more complicated than the concept itself. For an initial example, you can take a computer game of chess, when before this training on powerful computers, but we have more complicated rules of constructing programs.
3. description of objects/environment with rules of interaction/change and final state ofobjects/environment. For a simple example, take trading: there are prices, indicators, mathematical operations and rules of dealing with the market, using mathematics combined with prices, indicators, and the target, which should be the maximum balance.
If we take a more complicated example, the sorting of numbers in the array. We have an array with random numbers, a target that determines if all numbers in the array obey the rule "greater than the previous one" (extreme cases will be left aside for simplicity) and a set of rules/principles of building programs. How to solve this problem in general? The search space is infinite. We can limit ourselves to "comparing numbers in array", "permutation", keep "for" loop, change the target itself so it reflects how close we are to the final result (e.g. percentage of correct positions of adjacent elements), runtime limitation etc. But this is tantamount to writing a program manually. This is worth thinking about at an early stage.
2. this issue is more complex than the concept itself. For an initial example, we can take a computer game of chess, when before this there was learning on powerful computers, but we have more complex rules for building programs.
3. description of objects/environment with rules of interaction/change and final state ofobjects/environment. In a simple example, take trading: there are prices, indicators, mathematical operations and rules of dealing with the market, using mathematics in combination with prices, indicators, and the target that will be the maximum balance.
In physics we can calculate the waves from a stone into the water. at the same time the water is static in front of it. But a rock in a storm is not yet calculable.
Modelling and describing the environment is better from the simple to the complex. 1000 traders with a clear distribution of deposits, there is a description of the behaviour, also not the same, but we understand groups of the same behaviour. News. Calculate traders behaviour and price movement.
2. this issue is more complex than the concept itself. For an initial example, we can take a computer game of chess, when before this there was learning on powerful computers, but we have more complex rules for building programs.
3. description of objects/environment with rules of interaction/change and final state ofobjects/environment. For a simple example, take trading: there are prices, indicators, mathematical operations and rules of dealing with the market, using mathematics combined with prices, indicators, and the target, which should be the maximum balance.
And if we take a more complicated example, the sorting of numbers in the array. We have an array with random numbers, a target that determines if all numbers in the array obey the rule "greater than the previous one" (extreme cases will be left aside for simplicity) and a set of rules/principles of building programs. How to solve this problem in general? The search space is infinite. We can limit ourselves to "comparing numbers in array", "permutation", keep "for" loop, change the target for it to show how close we are to the final result (e.g. percentage of correct positions of adjacent elements), runtime limitation etc. But this is tantamount to writing a program manually. This is worth thinking about at an early stage.
The human brain is not the best machine for solving all problems and is considerably inferior to a computer in speed and accuracy, but we are trying to bring the computer to the brain and not the brain to the computer. Why? You set lower-order tasks to a computer, believing that this is the purpose, whereas I am trying to set the "macro-task" of constructing various systems on the basis of a general model of the object. This computer may not be able to sort through arrays quickly and accurately, like a human, but it can do something much more. Who knows...
The human brain is not the best machine for solving all problems and is considerably inferior to a computer in speed and accuracy of calculations, but for some reason we try to bring a computer closer to a brain, not a brain to a computer. Why? You set a lower-order task for a computer, thinking that this is the purpose, whereas I am trying to set a "macro-task" of constructing various systems on the basis of a general model of the object. This computer may not be able to sort through arrays quickly and accurately, like a human, but it can do something much more. Who knows...
the brain is much more powerful than the computer... it's just that the tasks it performs aren't really valued... at least not as a measure of performance...
The human brain is not the best machine for solving all problems and is considerably inferior to a computer in speed and accuracy of calculations, but for some reason we try to bring a computer closer to a brain, not a brain to a computer. Why? You set a lower-order task for a computer, thinking that this is the purpose, whereas I am trying to set a "macro-task" of constructing various systems on the basis of a general model of the object. This computer may not be able to sort through arrays quickly and accurately, like a human, but it can do something much more. Who knows...
Humans have critical thinking, but computers do not.
The human brain is not the best machine for solving all problems and is considerably inferior to a computer in speed and accuracy of calculations, but for some reason we try to bring a computer closer to a brain, not a brain to a computer. Why? You set lower order tasks to a computer, thinking that this is the purpose, whereas I am trying to set the "macro-task" of constructing various systems on the basis of a general model of the object. This computer may not be able to sort through arrays quickly and accurately, like a human, but it can do something much more. Who knows...
the brain is much more powerful than the computer... It's just that the tasks it performs aren't really valued... at least not as a measure of performance...
No doubt, but we are very bad at it and often have to put up with very low performance against which computers easily outperform us).
Absolutely, but we are very bad at managing it