Critique of Paper by “Deep Learning Conspiracy”

Re:Critique of Paper by “Deep Learning Conspiracy” by sirseal on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @02:48PM (#9807579)

This is a good critique: it's important to cite the people who have laid the early groundwork, regardless of how far in the past that work was done.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critique of Paper by “Deep Learning Conspiracy” by sgt101 on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @02:56PM (#9807631)

Maybe every paper should cite Boole, Church & Flowers?

Or maybe not..

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critique of Paper by “Deep Learning Conspiracy” by GFK_of_xmaspast on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @03:40PM (#9807917)

You gonna cite Newtown and / or Leibniz when you differentiate a function? Use a zero? Don't forget to credit Brahmagupta!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critique of Paper by “Deep Learning Conspiracy” by fatjokes on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @05:57PM (#9808684)

Only if you were going to later cite yourself as a pioneer of calculus.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Critique of Paper by “Deep Learning Conspiracy” by drdeca on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @03:47PM (#9807970)

maybe just #include <standardCitations.h> ?

[ Parent | on HN ]