Zhi Han
"Suppose that you want to teach the 'cat' concept to a very young child. Do you explain that a cat is a relatively small, primarily carnivorous mammal with retractible claws, a distinctive sonic output, etc.? I'll bet not. You probably show the kid a lot of different cats, saying 'kitty' each time, until it gets the idea. To put it more generally, generalizations are best made by abstraction from experience."
R. P. Boas (Can we make mathematics inelligible?, American Mathematical Monthly 88 (1981), pp. 727-731)
This talk is partly an adaptation of the YouTube series "Learning to See" by Welch Labs.
Imagine we want to teach a machine how to count fingers.
After all, counting is the foundation of arithemetic. How might we do this?
We could just define what a finger looks like:
Testing the algorithm, we see:
Could just keep adding rules on top of rules on top of rules, but:
Fine. We can't define what a finger looks like, so let's take the training examples to be rules:
On the training data, it performs well!
Knowledge engineering: 10%
Memorization: 100%
On the test set, not so well:
Knowledge engineering: 14%
Memorization: 11%
Memorization with 10x the examples: 21%
Incoming Feynman quote...
We saw in our two algorithms, memorization and knowledge engineering that
perform poorly on the testing phase.
The bias variance trade off.
In statistics, data is non-biased. This implies that:
How do we learn?
To learn is to generalize.
To learn from data, we have to make assumptions on the data.
What is the data?
Intuition
"data"
Formalism
"generalizations"
Proof
Abuse of notation
Summary of the talk.
To learn from data, we have to make assumptions on the data.
Why might we prefer some axiomatic systems over others?
Suggests that math is grounded in human intuition.