Anything related to the concept of infinity tends to be hardly understandable in an "emotional" or "intuitive" way. We can just apply the rules of logic and accept.
Since pi is not random, we cannot say that every finite string is in it. (If it was, the probability P[s in binary representation] would be 1 for every finite s)
Actually, there is no proof and no counter proof that every finite string comes up in pi. (...that I know of)
fincancial fraud detection bottlenecks are typically between ram and the processor. Thousands of snychronously incoming transactions have to be examined simultanously, because they correlate heavily.
It is not like "here is one transaction, is it a fraud?" but "here are 2^20 transactions, what are the frauds?".
You could do this by pipelining, but I guess Banks want a zero downtime system and I personally would not trust an API in terms of reliability.
Another point is, that banks will not give you the original data. They will have to "pseudonymize" several entries, such as credit card numbers, names, ...
This would force them to preprocess the data which gives every transaction a very little + O(n) and which might decrease the speed even more.
(I'm not saying it's technically impossible, but I'd say there are better ways, such as releasing it closed source or just using it to predict financial data - which as we all know is possible and being done by hedge fonds, so this should be the best way IF you have that algorithm ;)
There are a lot of different fields in ML. I don't believe that you have an algorithm that beats all algorithms out there , even if those are specialized on a specific setting.
No, I'm saying that a neural network can learn addition.
See, a bayesian cannot really understand that there are relations between two numbers (like "is bigger than" or "is the following number of"), but a neural network can, since addition is part of a NN.
My personal recommendation on machine learning is 'Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning' by Chris Bishop. But you definately do need a solid mathematical background for that.
I think you get used to every Syntax. The point is, Lisp et al are much more compact, which makes the concepts easier to grasp.
I get a (mapcar #'f '(1 2 3)) much quicker than a
x = {1, 2, 3}; for (int i = 1; i < 4; i++) { x[i] *= 2; }