Re: Proof that neural nets work
- From: "John Moody" <john.atwell.moody@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 19 May 2006 16:10:10 -0700
Hi William,
You got me there, a neural net is a neural net. The only real
difference could be if a person made a mistake programming it up, used
the wrong transition function etc.
The fact that GoldenGem is proven to actually work, means something
but admittedly not a lot.
Also the fact it runs once you enter the tickers, no messing around.
Also the fact that the 'backprop' algorithm is the right one. Again
admittedly there is only one right algorithm, but a lot of the people
(in engineering) who write about and use neural nets don't always get
the partial differential equations right.
The GoldenGem calculator is just an industry standard, I'm trying
to bring it into the 21'st century. No claim or originality on my part,
but I really understand all the main issues and the performance proves
itself.
John Moody.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Proof that neural nets work
- From: John Moody
- Re: Proof that neural nets work
- References:
- Proof that neural nets work
- From: John Moody
- Re: Proof that neural nets work
- From: Bill Reid
- Proof that neural nets work
- Prev by Date: Re: Why Do I Have To
- Next by Date: Re: Proof that neural nets work
- Previous by thread: Re: Proof that neural nets work
- Next by thread: Re: Proof that neural nets work
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|