|
|
|
|
|
by danharaj
3011 days ago
|
|
It doesn't because neural networks are already (matrices + nonlinearity) over the ground field and therefore all but the simplest possible neural networks are non-commutative anyway. Non-associativity is much more troublesome because it sabotages the most important property of neural networks for deep learning, that you can compose them by feeding outputs of one as inputs into another. Take out the associativity and you've taken out the "deep" in "deep learning". Edit: On further reflection, the non-commutativity of neural networks is also a crucial component of machine learning. Without it, a neural network can't make a decision at one layer that depends on its decisions at a previous level! |
|
If
- your network structure is fixed, and
- you always evaluate the matrix in a given order, and
- you are careful/smart about how you train the weights (Ok, I haven't thought through the ramifications here...)
then I'm not sure you care much about either commutativity or associativity. Maybe a lack of associativity makes backprop impossible, and maybe commutativity makes "Google deep dream" impossible (no idea), but I don't quite agree with the "composability" objection to a lack of associativity and I don't understand the objection to a lack of commutativity sorry.