Unfortunate because it has distorted the original idea beyond recognition. :)
A lot of people know F. J. Dyson only for Dyson "spheres" (the original conception was that of a swarm, SF modified the idea to a sphere, then shell). Though it's obvious he did a lot of other work and that the Dyson sphere was nothing as compared to what he has done. It was just a thought experiment.
The link above is to a fermi lab program to look for Dyson spheres. The Matrioshka brain is a subset of the Dyson sphere. Something made famous, unfortunately, by Trekkers.
I notice some people above saying that it could be a mistake. I think it could be. But it is less likely that it was.
I say that because Pachauri had been saying for a year that the Indian government was being arrogant by not agreeing to their "findings". And he rejected research such as this : http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discu...
Compiled by people who have 3-4 decades of experience in Himalayan glaciology.
Please do check that review paper. It is not easy to find.
Hmmm, Okay! Enough said.
Why can't there be much interest? :)
My old professor (who is an authority with RBMs) linked me up and asked me to see and make sure I know certain things about it.Let me give it some months and report back to him. I basically work with SVMs, it's his suggestion to study RBMs (which I know already) and sent me a number of papers.
I am not sure why he sent me this one (it's just a month old).
This one to be frank looked pretty nice to me, and I downloaded a number of other papers to study it. Even if I give up. I'll be glad to learn some of the math involved. I'd rather go with his opinion. Thanks.
The aim of my submission (as is the aim of most my submissions) was actually to get some comments on it, and links to some resources. Not what a person should learn and what not. I'll know better what to do and why. Given the wide pool of people on HN, I was hoping to get something interesting, say some comments ON the paper. Even one helpful comment would have done.
LOL.
The paper is very recent. And extremely impregnable for someone like me. I was actually hoping for some comments on it by people who work on RBMs. Like I got some good comments on a ML gallery I posted. Sometimes comments help clear up things, and even a little clearing up is good IMHO.
I think they did because they didn't have a look at the abstract, but read it partially by title only.
And maybe you know, thought it was something introductory on RBM's ?
I mean RBMs are extremely pretty. And I am just beginning to appreciate that.
I think I'll keep reading PHD comics, just because it's really funny. I don't relate it to grad-school as such. Just the whole exaggerated sense it is written in.