Knowledge is “…contextualized logical axioms (in the formal language, CycL) based on extensions to first-order predicate calculus, and then use that enormous ontology, inference engine…” -DBL
Perhaps this is still just too abstract. Also, my understanding of your work is still very introductory.
I now have open on my desktop your PhD dissertation, the summary about you within Wikipedia, and some of your current work. My work within AI and quantum computing is introductory at best, yet to learn quickly I try to find the best teachers, but then ask, “What are they missing?”
Now, who am I?
My rather limited full-disclosure starts here. I also know full well that my work since 2011 is idiosyncratic. We created a simple mathematical model of the universe by applying base-2 notation to the Planck base units to go to the age and size of the universe in 202 doublings. The back story is here. And, a chart of numbers is here.
I have been looking for somebody to dismember that logic. Most people seem so afraid to engage. I am sure you are not afraid and perhaps you might suggest a path back to the straight and narrow.
We all grew up with Euclid’s Axioms where space is homogeneous, isotropic and unbounded. Newton and Hawking adopted the logic. Yet, if we adopt the dimensionless constants like pi, aren’t boundaries introduced with the Planck base units and within every notation or doubling to our most-current time (the Now)?
Using that same line of thought, would (or could) algorithms also be contained by that application of base-2?