Is that really true? Couldn’t one say that of just about any Turing-complete (or less) model of computation?
‘Oh, it’s interesting that they are really just a simple unary fixed-length lambda-calculus function with constant-value parameters.’
‘Oh, it’s interesting that they are really just restricted petri-nets with bounded branching factors.’
‘Oh, it’s interesting that these are modelable by finite automata.’
etc. (Plausible-sounding gobbledygook included to make the point.)
Yes, sort of, but a) a linear classifier is not a Turing-complete model of computation, and b) there is a clear resemblance that can be seen by merely glancing at the equations.
Is that really true? Couldn’t one say that of just about any Turing-complete (or less) model of computation?
‘Oh, it’s interesting that they are really just a simple unary fixed-length lambda-calculus function with constant-value parameters.’
‘Oh, it’s interesting that they are really just restricted petri-nets with bounded branching factors.’
‘Oh, it’s interesting that these are modelable by finite automata.’
etc. (Plausible-sounding gobbledygook included to make the point.)
Yes, sort of, but a) a linear classifier is not a Turing-complete model of computation, and b) there is a clear resemblance that can be seen by merely glancing at the equations.