Multidimensional Neural Networks Unified Theory Rama Murthy - NEW AGE - 2007

This page
intentionally left
blank
Copyright © 2008, New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers
Published by New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers
All rights reserved.

No part of this ebook may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microfilm,
xerography, or any other means, or incorporated into any information retrieval
system, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the publisher.
All inquiries should be emailed to rights@newagepublishers.com
ISBN (13) : 978-81-224-2629-8
PUBLISHING FOR ONE WORLD

NEW AGE INTERNATIONAL (P) LIMITED, PUBLISHERS
4835/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110002
Visit us at www.newagepublishers.com
Dedicated to the memory of
JESUS CHRIST
and
SARASWATI
This page
intentionally left
blank
Preface
This book deals with a novel paradigm of neural networks, called multidimensional neural
networks. It also provides comprehensive description of a certain unified theory of control,
communication and computation. This book can serve as a textbook for an advanced course
on neural networks or computational intelligence/cybernetics. Both senior undergraduate
and graduate students can get benefit from such a course. It can also serve as a reference
book for practicising engineers utilizing neural networks. Further more, the book can be
used as a research monograph by neural network researchers.
In the field of electrical engineering, researchers have innovated sub-fields such as
control theory, communication theory and computation theory. Concepts such as logic
gates, error correcting codes and optimal control vectors arise in the computation,
communication and control theories respectively. In one dimensional systems, the concept
of error correcting codes, logic gates are related to neural networks. The author, in his
research efforts showed that the optimal control vectors (associated with a one dimensional
linear system) constitute the stable states of a neural network. Thus unified theory is
discovered and formalized in one dimensional systems. Questioning the possibility of
logic gates operating on higher dimensional arrays resulted in the discovery as well as
formalisation of the research area of multi/infinite dimensional logic theory. The author
has generalised the known relationship between one dimensional logic theory and one
dimensional neural networks to multiple dimensions. He has also generalised the
relationship between one dimensional neural networks and error correcting codes to
multidimensions (using generator tensor).
On the way to unification in multidimensional systems the author has discovered and
formalised the concept of tensor state space representation of certain multidimensional
linear systems.
It is well accepted that the area of complex valued neural networks is a very promising
research area. The author has proposed a novel activation function called the complex signum
function. This function has enabled proposing a complex valued neural associative memory
on the complex hypercube.
He also proposed novel models of neuron (such as linear filter model of synapse).
This book contains 10 chapters. The first chapter provides an introduction to the unified
theory of control, communication and computation. Chapter 2 introduces a mathematical
(viii) Preface
model of multidimensional neural networks and the associated convergence theorem. In

Chapter 3, the concepts of multidimensional error correcting codes, multidimensional
neural networks and optimization of multi-variate polynomials (associated with a tensor)
over various subsets of multidimensional lattice, are related from different view points. In
Chapter 4, Tensor State Space Representation (TSSR) of certain multidimensional linear
systems is discussed. In Chapter 5, Unified Theory of Control, Communication and
Computation in multidimensional linear systems is summarized. In chapter 6, the author
proposes a novel complex signum function. In Chapter 7, a novel optimal filtering problem
associated with a one dimensional linear system is formulated and solved. In Chapter 8, a
linear filter model of synapse is proposed. Also a novel continuous time associative memory
and the associated convergence theorem are discussed. In Chapter 9, a novel model of
neuron and associated real/complex neural networks are proposed. Finally in Chapter 10,
advanced theory of evolution based on the unified theory is briefly discussed.
The Chapters in this book are organised in such a way that there is considerable
flexibility in its use by its readers. For instance, Chapters 1 to 5 can form the basis for a
graduate course on multidimensional neural networks and unified theory. This course is a
compulsory course for students interested in doing research on computational intelligence
(cybernetics). The students/researchers interested in doing research on complex valued
neural networks will find interesting material in Chapters 6 and 9. Further, the students/
researchers interested in exploring interrelationship between signal processing and neural
networks will enjoy understanding the material in Chapters 7 and 8. Finally, Chapter 10
will provide counter-intuitive insights into the theory of organic evolution.
This writing project would not be possible without the cooperation of my brother Dr.
G.V.S.R. Prasad and my beloved mother. I thank many colleagues at IIIT and those around
the world who believe that this book is my first masterpiece. I specially thank Sri Damodaran
and other employees of New Age International (P) Ltd. for making my dream of publishing
this book a reality.
G. Rama Murthy
Contents
PREFACE (vii)
1. INTRODUCTION 1
L OGICAL BASIS FOR COMPUTATION 3
L OGICAL BASIS FOR CONTROL 3
L OGICAL BASIS OF COMMUNICATION 4
A DVANCED THEORY OF EVOLUTION 6
2. MULTI/INFINITE DIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS, MULTI/INFINITE

DIMENSIONAL LOGIC THEORY 9
2.1. INTRODUCTION 9
2.2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS 11
2.3. CONVERGENCE THEOREM FOR MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS 14
2.4. MULTIDIMENSIONAL LOGIC THEORY, LOGIC SYNTHESIS 17
2.5. INFINITE DIMENSIONAL LOGIC THEORY: INFINITE DIMENSIONAL LOGIC SYNTHESIS 20
2.6. N EURAL NETWORKS, LOGIC THEORIES, CONSTRAINED STATIC OPTIMIZATION 23
2.7. CONCLUSIONS 25
3. MULTI/INFINITE DIMENSIONAL CODING THEORY: MULTI/INFINITE

DIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS—CONSTRAINED STATIC OPTIMIZATION 27
3.1. INTRODUCTION 27
3.2. MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS: MINIMUM CUT COMPUTATION IN
THE CONNECTION STRUCTURE: GRAPHOID CODES 29
3.3. MULTIDIMENSIONAL ERROR CORRECTING CODES: ASSOCIATED ENERGY
FUNCTIONS—GENERALIZED NEURAL NETWORKS 34
3.4. MULTIDIMENSIONAL ERROR CORRECTING CODES: RELATIONSHIP
TO STABLE STATES OF ENERGY FUNCTIONS 39
3.5. N ON-BINARY LINEAR CODES 42
3.6. N ON-LINEAR CODES 45
3.7. CONSTRAINED STATIC OPTIMIZATION 53
3.8. CONCLUSIONS 59
(x) Contents
4. TENSOR STATE SPACE REPRESENTATION: MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS 61

4.2. STATE OF THE ART IN MULTI/ INFINITE DIMENSIONAL STATIC/ DYNAMIC SYSTEM THEORY:
REPRESENTATION BY TENSOR LINEAR OPERATOR 63
4.3. STATE SPACE REPRESENTATION OF CERTAIN MULTI/ INFINITE DIMENSIONAL
DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS: TENSOR LINEAR OPERATOR 65
4.4. MULTI/ INFINITE DIMENSIONAL SYSTEM THEORY: LINEAR DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS –
STATE SPACE REPRESENTATION BY TENSOR LINEAR OPERATORS 69
4.5. STOCHASTIC DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 70
4.6. DISTRIBUTED DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 73
4.7. CONCLUSIONS 76
5. UNIFIED THEORY OF CONTROL, COMMUNICATION AND

COMPUTATION: MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS 79
5.2. ONE DIMENSIONAL LOGIC FUNCTIONS, CODEWORD VECTORS, OPTIMAL CONTROL VECTORS:
ONE DIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS 80
5.3. OPTIMAL CONTROL TENSORS: MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS 82
5.4. MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS: OPTIMAL CONTROL TENSORS,
CODEWORD TENSORS AND SWITCHING FUNCTION TENSORS 90
5.5 CONCLUSIONS 92
6. COMPLEX VALUED NEURAL ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY ON THE COMPLEX HYPERCUBE 95

6.2. FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED MODEL 96
6.3 CONVERGENCE THEOREMS 97
6.4. CONCLUSIONS 105
7. OPTIMAL BINARY FILTERS: NEURAL NETWORKS 107

7.2. OPTIMAL SIGNAL DESIGN PROBLEM: SOLUTION 107
7.3. OPTIMAL FILTER DESIGN PROBLEM: SOLUTION (DUAL OF SIGNAL DESIGN PROBLEM) 113
8. LINEAR FILTER MODEL OF A SYNAPSE: ASSOCIATED NOVEL REAL/COMPLEX

VALUED NEURAL NETWORKS 117
8.2. C ONTINUOUS TIME PERCEPTRON AND GENERALIZATIONS 118
8.3 A BSTRACT MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE OF NEURONAL MODELS 120
8.4. FINITE IMPULSE RESPONSE MODEL OF SYNAPSES: NEURAL NETWORKS 121
Contents (xi)
8.5. N OVEL CONTINUOUS TIME ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY 122

8.6. MULTIDIMENSIONAL GENERALIZATIONS 125
8.7. G ENERALIZATION TO COMPLEX VALUED NEURAL NETWORKS (CVNNS) 125
9. NOVEL COMPLEX VALUED NEURAL NETWORKS 129

9.2 DISCRETE FOURIER TRANSFORM: SOME COMPLEX VALUED NEURAL NETWORKS 130
9.3. COMPLEX VALUED PERCEPTRON 133
9.4. N OVEL MODEL OF A NEURON: ASSOCIATED NEURAL NETWORKS 133
9.5. CONTINUOUS TIME PERCEPTRON LEARNING LAW 134
9.6. SOME IMPORTANT GENERALIZATIONS 135
9.7. SOME OPEN QUESTIONS 135
10. ADVANCED THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS 137

10.1. UNIFIED THEORY: CYBERNETICS 137
10.2. ORGANIC EVOLUTION 137
10.3. EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS: INNOVATIVE PRINCIPLES 138
INDEX 141
This page
intentionally left
blank
CHAPTER
1
Introduction
Ever since the dawn of civilization, the homo-sapien animal unlike other lower level animals
was constantly creating tools that enabled the community to not only take advantage of
the physical universe but also develop a better understanding of the physical reality through
the discovery of underlying physical laws. The homo-sapien, like other lower level animals
had two primary necessities: metabolism and reproduction. But, more important was the
obsession with other developed necessities such as art, painting, music and sculpture.
These necessities naturally lead to the habit of concentration. This most important habit
enabled him to develop abstract tools utilized to study nature in most advanced civilizations.
Thus the homo-sapien animal achieved the distinction of being a higher animal compared
to the other animals in nature.
In ancient Greece, the homo-sapien civilization was highly advanced in many matters
compared to all other civilizations. Such a lead was symbolized by the development of
mathematics subject in various important stages. The most significant indication of such
development is left to posterity in the form of 13 books called, Euclid’s Elements. These
books provide the first documented effort of axiomatic development of a mathematical
structure such as the Euclidean geometry. Also, Greek, Babylonian civilizations made
important strides in algebra: solving linear, quadratic equations and studying the quadratic
homogeneous forms in two variables (for conic sections). Algebra was revived during the
Renaissance in Italy. In algebra, solution of cubic, quartic equations was carried out by the
Italian algebraists. This constituted the intellectual heritage, cultural heritage along with
religious, social traditions.
To satisfy the curiosity of observing the heavens, various star constellations,
astronomical objects were classified. In navigating the ships for battle purposes as well as
trade, astronomical observations were made. These provided the first curious data related
to the natural world. In an effort to understand the non-living material universe, homo-
sapiens have devised various tools: measuring equipment, experimental equipment,
mathematical procedures, mathematical tools etc.
2 Multidimensional Neural Networks: Unified Theory
With the discovery that Sun is the center of our relative motion system by Copernicus,
Ptolemaic theory was permanently forsaken. It gave Galileo, the curious motivation for
deriving the empirical laws of far flung significance in natural philosophy/natural
science/physics. Kepler after strenuous efforts derived the laws of planetary motion
leading to some of the laws of Newton. Issac Newton formalized the laws of Galileo by
developing calculus. He also developed a theory of gravitation based on the empirical
laws of Kepler. Michael Faraday derived the empirical laws of electric and magnetic
phenomena. Though Newton’s mechanical laws were successfully utilized to explain
heat phenomenon, kinetic theory of gases as being due to mechanical motion of molecules,
atoms, they were inadequate for electrical phenomena. Maxwell formalized Faraday’s
laws of electro-magnetic induction leading to his field equations. Later physics developed
at a feverish pace.
These results in physics were paralleled by developments in other related areas such
as chemistry, biology etc. Thus, the early efforts of homo-sapiens matured into a clearer
view of the non-living world. The above description summarizes the pre 20th century
development of this progress on homo-sapien contributions to understanding the non-
living material universe.
In making conclusive statements on the origin and evolution of physical reality,
the developments of the 20th century are more important. In that endeavor, Einstein’s
general theory of relativity was one of the most important cornerstones of 20th century
physics. It enabled him to develop a general, more correct theory of gravitation,
outdating the Newtonian theory. It showed that gravitation is due to curvature of space-
time continuum. The general theory of relativity also showed that all natural physical
laws are invariant under non-linear transformations. This result was a significant
improvement over special theory of relativity, where he showed that all natural physical
laws are invariant under linear Lorentz transformations. This result (in special theory
of relativity) was achieved when Einstein realized that due to finiteness of velocity of
light, one must discard the notions of absolute space and time. They must be replaced
by the notions of space-time continuum i.e. space and time are not independent of one
another, but are dependent. Thus, special and general theories of relativity constrained
the form of natural physical law.
In the 20th century, along with the Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics was
developed due to the efforts of M.Planck, E. Schrodinger and W. Heisenberg. This theory
showed that the electromagnetic field at the quantum level was quantized. This, along
with, wave-particle duality of light was considered irreconcilable with the general theory
of relativity. To reconcile general theory of relativity with various quantum theories,
Y. Nambu proposed a string model for fundamental particles and formalized the
dynamics of light string. Utilizing the experimentally verified quantum theories of
chromodynamics, electrodynamics, supersymmetry of fundamental particles (unifying
Bosons and Fermions), it was possible to supersymmetrize the string model of
fundamental particles, resulting in the so-called superstring (supersymmetric string)
Introduction 3
theory. Currently, to explain the non-living universe, string model hopes to be

experimentally verifiable, theoretically viable model.
But the material universe consists of living universe as well as non-living universe. All
efforts in science probed the non-living universe using experimental as well as theoretical
methodology. The efforts of all scientists enabled them to see farther by “standing on the
shoulders of earlier giants”. The homo-sapien animals by devising various tools discovered
and formalized various laws and theories related to non-living physical reality based
dynamical systems. The homo-sapien animal learned to build machines to facilitate his
life and that of the community surrounding him. By understanding the mechanism of
various functional units in living system such as ear, eye, various machines such as
telephone, television, loud-speaker were built. Also, in the research area of artificial
intelligence in Electrical Engineering, various functions of human brain are simulated in
machines called robots.
In the case of living universe, the scene was entirely different. The author made various
pioneering innovations on living systems unlike the extended, stretched over effort of
non-living systems by various eminent scientists. The objective/goal of this is to provide
artificial/manufacturable models of living systems i.e. robots which resemble in every
respect living systems. In arriving at artificial models, the effort of various eminent
mathematicians, scientists culminating in those of N. Wiener (who coined the word
CYBERNETICS) were helpful. The important discovery and the associated formalization
belonged to the pioneering efforts of the author.
LOGICAL BASIS FOR COMPUTATION
George Boole developed the algebra when the variables assume “true” or “false” values.
This algebra is called the Boolean algebra. Certain elementary Boolean algebraic expressions
are realized in equipment called “logic gates”. When the logic gates are combined/co-
ordinated, arbitrary Boolean algebraic expression can be computed. The combination of
Boolean logic gates ( an assemblage with some minimum configuration of gates) and
memory elements forms an arithmetic unit. When such a unit is coupled with a control
unit the Central Processor Unit (CPU) in a computer is realized. The CPU in association
with a memory, input and output units forms a computational unit without intelligence.
This is just a machine which can be utilized to perform computational tasks in a fast manner.
Various thought provoking modifications make it operate on data in an efficient manner
and provide computational results related to various problems.
LOGICAL BASIS FOR CONTROL
Faraday conducted the experiments related to electrical and magnetic phenomenon. He

discovered the laws of electro-magnetic induction. Based on his investigations, Fleming
discovered that a time varying electric field leads to magnetic field which can be capitalized
for the motion of a neutral body. He also discovered that a time varying magnetic field leads
to electric field inside a neutral conductor and flow of current takes place. These formed the
Fleming’s left hand and right hand rules relating the relativistic effects between the electric
field, magnetic field and conductor. These investigations of Faraday and other scientists
naturally paved the way for electric circuits consisting of resistors, inductors and capacitors.
Such initial efforts led to canonical circuits such as RL circuit, RLC circuit, RC circuit etc. The
systems of differential equations and their responses were computed utilizing the analytical
techniques. The ability to control the motion of an arbitrary neutral object led to applications
of electrical circuits and their modifications for control of trajectories of aircrafts. Thus, the
automata which can perform CONTROL tasks was generated. These control automata were
primarily based on electrical circuits and operate in continuous time with the ability to make
synchronization at discrete instants. Later utilizing the Sampling Theorem, sample-data
control systems operating in discrete time were developed.
LOGICAL BASIS OF COMMUNICATION
The problem of communication is to convey message from one point in space to another
point in space as reliably as possible. The message on being transmitted through the channel,
by being subject to various forms of disturbance (noise) is changed/garbled. By coding
the message (through addition of redundancy), it is possible to retrieve the original message
from the received message.
Thus, the three problems: control, communication and computation can be described
through the illustration in Figure 1.1. From the illustration, the message that is generated
may be in continuous time or discrete time. Utilizing the Sampling Theorem, if the original
signal is band-limited, then the message can be sampled. The sampled signal forms the
message in discrete time. The message is then encoded through an encoder. It is then
transmitted through a channel. If the channel is a waveform channel, various digital
modulation schemes are utilized in encoding. The signal, on reaching the receiver is
demodulated through the demodulator and then it is decoded. This whole assembly of
hardware equipment forms the COMMUNICATION equipment.
The above summary provided the efforts of engineers, scientists and mathematicians
to synthesize the automata which serve the purpose of CONTROL, COMMUNICATION
AND COMPUTATION. These functions are the basis of automata that stimulate living
systems. These automata model the living systems. In other words, control, communication
and computation automata when properly assembled and co-ordinated lead to robots which
simulate some functions of various living systems.
In the above effort at simulating the functions of living systems in machines, traditionally
the control, communication and computation automata led to sophisticated robots (which
served the purpose pretty well). Thus, the utilitarian viewpoint was partially satisfied.
But, the author took a more FUNDAMENTAL approach to the problem of simulating a
are extended to multi/infinite dimensional linear systems. Also, the results developed
in one dimension for computation of optimal control are immediately extended to certain
multi/infinite dimensional linear systems. This result in association with the formalization
of multi/infinite dimensional logic theory, multi/infinite dimensional coding theory
(as an extension of one dimensional linear and non-linear codes) provided the formal
UNIFIED THEORY in multi/infinite dimensional linear systems. The formal
mathematical detail on models of living system functions are provided in Chapters 2 to
5. These chapters provide the details on control, communication and computation
automata in multiple dimensions. Several generalized models of neural networks are
discussed in Chapters 5 to 9. Also relationship between neural networks and optimal filters
is discussed in Chapter 7. In Chapter 10 advanced theory of evolution is discussed.
ADVANCED THEORY OF EVOLUTION
Mathematical models of living system functions motivated us to take a closer look at the
functions of natural living systems observed in physical reality. In physical reality, we observe
homo-sapiens as well as lower level animals such as tigers, lions, snakes etc. It is reasoned
that some of the functions of natural living systems are misunderstood or un-understood.
Biological living systems such as homo-sapiens lead to a biological culture. In a
biological culture that originated during the ice age in oceans, various living species
were living in the oceans. Through some process, the two necessities of metabolism and
reproduction were developed by all living species. The homo-sapien species was
responsible for our current understanding of various activities, functions of observed
living systems. The author hypothesizes that the homo-sapien interpretations are totally
wrong. For instance,
• Metabolism which leads to killing of one species by another is unnecessary to
sustain life.
• The belief (like many superstitions) that death and aging are inevitable is only
partially true.
To be more precise, it should be possible to take non-decayed organs of a living species
and by recharging the dead cells, make it living. Many such innovative ideas on living
systems are discussed in Chapter 10.
The only necessities of natural living systems that are observed are ‘metabolism’ and
‘reproduction’. By and large the only organization and community formation that we see
in other (than homo-sapiens) natural sustems are of the following form
• Migratory pattern of birds
• Sharing the information on the place of food
• Forming a group of families to satisfy the reproductive needs
• Occasional bird songs of mutual courtship
• Occsional rituals related to protecting the members of their group etc.
Introduction 7
The organization, culture observed in other biological systems and other natural living
systems is nowhere comparable to those observed in the homo-sapien species. But the
author hypothesizes that this marginal/poor organization is primarily due to lack of co-
ordination which is achieved through the language. Thus, major effort in organizing the
lower level species of living systems is through teaching a language. Thus, organization of
living systems other than the homo-sapiens (for homo-sapien and other purposes) should
be possible.
An important part of organizing the homo-sapiens was the educational system through
an associated language. In the same spirit, by teaching some lower level animals to speak
certain language, they could be organized/educated to understand as well as develop
science and technology. When the lower level animals are organized in a zoo through
various methods, they could lead to a culture and a civilization.
Various natural living machines have developed organs/functional units due to
evolutionary needs. These functional units essentially include sensors to collect video,
audio information or more generally sensors to collect data on the surrounding environment
in the universe. The data gathered by the living machine from the surrounding environment
in physical reality is utilized to perform some primary functions such as metabolism,
reproduction etc. The data is processed by various functional sub-units inside the brain of
a living machine. Thus the understanding of the operation of various functional sub-units
in the brain of natural living machines leads to building artificial living machines which
are far superior in functional capabilities.
This page
intentionally left
blank
CHAPTER
2
Multi/Infinite Dimensional
Neural Networks, Multi/Infinite
Dimensional Logic Theory
2.1 INTRODUCTION
One dimensional logic theory is concerned with the study of static/dynamic

transformations on one dimensional arrays of zeroes and ones to arrive at arrays of
zeroes and ones. Various standard logic gates such as AND, OR, NOT, NAND, XOR,
NOR are defined on one dimensional arrays/vectors. The logic synthesis of digital
integrated circuits, consisting of the interconnection of logic gates which transit through
a set of states, is performed through the utilization of the associated state transition
diagram. The set of allowed transitions in the state space lead to various classes of
digital circuits such as shift registers, counters, flip flops etc. In one dimensional logic
theory various theorems on the decomposition, synthesis of Boolean functions are
proved and are utilized in the logic synthesis of complex digital integrated circuits. In
the practical implementation of such digital integrated circuits, semiconductor
technology with devices such as diodes, transistors, field effect transistors was
effectively utilized.
The design and implementation of complex digital integrated circuits led to the
development of highly sophisticated computers, computer systems serving various practical
applications. Some practical applications such as those in medical imaging, remote sensing,
pattern recognition led to the design and implementation of various types of parallel
computers. These computers operate on two dimensional arrays of zeroes and ones. But the
processing units in these computers treat the two dimensional array elements as those from
one dimensional arrays. Thus, the two dimensional nature of an array with dependency
structure is never capitalized. This limitation led the author to innovate information processing
units which operate on two/multidimensional arrays. Such information processing units
should necessarily be based on sub-units which operate on arrays of binary data and produce
binary arrays. These sub-units constitute the two/multidimensional logic circuits. A more
general class of information processing sub-units and thus the units operate on arrays whose
entries are allowed to assume multiple (not necessarily binary) values.
Automata which operate on multidimensional arrays to perform desired operation
can be defined heuristically in many ways. In some applications such as in 3-d array/
image processing, the information processing operation can only be defined heuristically
based on the required function. But, a more organized approach to define multidimensional
logic functions is discovered and formalized by the author. In this chapter, the author
describes the mathematical formalization for multidimensional logic units. The relationship
between multidimensional logic units and multidimensional neural networks is also
discussed. The generalization of the results to infinite dimensions is also briefly described.
Two dimensional neural networks were utilized by various researchers working in the
area of neural networks. The application of two dimensional neural networks to various
real world problems was also extensively studied. But, an effective mathematical abstraction
for modeling two/multi/infinite dimensional neural networks was lacking. The author in
this chapter demonstrates that tensors provide a mathematical abstraction to model multi/
infinite dimensional neural networks.
The contents of this chapter are summarized as follows:
A mathematical model of an arbitrary multidimensional neural network is developed. A
convergence theorem for an arbitrary multidimensional neural network represented by a
fully symmetric tensor is stated and proved. The input and output signal states of a
multidimensional logic gate/neural network are related through an energy function,
defined over the fully symmetric tensor representing the multidimensional logic gate, such
that the minimum/maximum energy states correspond to the output states of the logic
gate realizing a logic function. Similarly, a logic circuit consisting of the interconnection of
logic gates, represented by a symmetric tensor, is associated with a quadratic/higher degree
energy function. Multidimensional logic synthesis is described. Infinite dimensional logic
theory, logic synthesis are briefly discussed through the utilization of infinite dimension/
order tensors.
This chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, a mathematical model of an arbitrary
multidimensional neural network and associated terminology is developed. In section 3, a
convergence theorem for an arbitrary multidimensional neural network is proved. In section
4, the input/stable states of a multidimensional neural network are associated with the
input/output signal states of a multidimensional logic gate. A mathematical model of an
arbitrary multidimensional logic gate/circuit is described. Thus, multidimensional logic
theory, logic synthesis is formalized. In section 5, infinite dimensional logic theory, logic
synthesis are described. In section 6, the relationship between multidimensional neural
networks, multidimensional logic theories, various constrained static optimization problems
is elaborated. Various constrained optimization problems that commonly arise in various
problems are listed. Various innovative ideas in multidimensional neural networks are
briefly described. The chapter concludes with a set of conclusions.
Multi/Infinite Dimensional Neural Networks, Multi/Infinite Dimensional Logic Theory 11
2.2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS
A discrete time multidimensional neural network paradigm is a dynamical system evolving

in discrete time. It can be represented by a weighted connectionist structure in
multidimensions. Thus, there is a weight attached to each edge of the connectionist structure
in multidimensions and a threshold value attached to each node. At each node of the
connectionist structure, a certain algebraic threshold function is computed.
It is well known in the theory of one dimensional neural networks that a symmetric
matrix can be utilized to represent a one dimensional neural network. With the motivation,
applications of one dimensional neural networks, two dimensional neural networks were
heuristically designed and utilized for various applications. But, the author for the first
time realized that tensor is the most natural mathematical abstraction that can be utilized
to represent two/multidimensional neural networks.
Multidimensional Neural Networks: Tensors

Before describing the mathematical model of multidimensional neural networks, the
following discussion on tensors and associated concepts is very relevant.
It is important to realize that given n independent variables, the expression
n
∑C X
i =1
i 1 (2.1)
is called a homogeneous linear form in the variables, the expression

n n
∑∑ C
i =1 j =1
ij Xi X j (2.2)
is called a homogeneous quadratic form, the expression

n n n
∑∑∑ C
i =1 j =1 k =1
ijk Xi X j K k (2.3)
is called a homogeneous form (BoT) of degree three and so on. Given the components of
a tensor of order n, of dimension m , it is possible to define a homogeneous form of
degree n.
The connection structure of a one dimensional neural network, the symmetric matrix,
is naturally associated with a homogeneous quadratic form as the energy function, which
is optimized over the one dimensional hypercube. Thus, in one dimension, to utilize a
homogeneous form of degree n as the energy function, a generalized neural network is
employed, in which, at each neuron, an arbitrary algebraic threshold function is computed.
But, in multidimensions, to describe the connection structure of a neural network, a tensor
is necessarily utilized.
With the above description of necessity of tensors to represent generalized/

multidimensional neural networks, some notation related to tensors is provided to facilitate
the description of mathematical model of an arbitrary multidimensional neural network.
Tensors, Tensor Products

Matrices are utilized to represent quadratic forms, whereas tensors are necessary to
represent a homogeneous form of degree n.
Suppose, one second order tensor is a linear function of another second order tensor
i.e.
Aik = λiklm Bim (2.4)
where λiklm is a set of k 4 coefficients. It is easy to see that λiklm is a tensor of dimension k and
order 4. This is illustrative of linear transformation of tensors.
Now, we discuss some concepts in the multiplication of tensors.
Let A i k and Bi k be the components of two second order tensors. Consider all possible
products of the form
Ciklm = Aik Bim (2.5)
Then, the numbers C iklm are the components of a fourth-order tensor, called the outer
product of tensors with components A ik and Bi k.
Multiplication of any number of tensors of arbitrary order is defined similarly (BoT),
i.e. the product of two or more tensors is the product of the components of the tensors,
which are factors. The order of a tensor product is clearly the sum of the orders of the
factors.
Contraction of Tensors: The operation of summing a tensor of order n (n >2) over two
of its indices is called contraction. It is clear that contraction of a tensor of order n leads to a
tensor of order n-2. This tensor can be repeatedly contracted to arrive at a tensor of order 2
or a scalar depending on whether n is even or odd.
The result of multiplying two or more tensors and then contracting the product with
respect to indices belonging to different factors is often called an Inner Product of the
given tensors.
Thus, based on the notation associated with the indices, it is understood from the context
whether inner product or outer product of tensors is utilized.
With the above requisite notation from tensor algebra summarized, before describing
a mathematical model of an arbitrary multidimensional neural network, the following
intuitive discussion is provided to facilitate easier understanding.
The state of a neuron at the discrete time instant n+1 is computed by summing the
contributions from other neurons connected to it through synaptic weights which are the
components of a fully symmetric tensor S, representing the connection structure and the
state tensor of neuronal states at the time instant n. Thus, we first compute the outer product
of connection tensor and the state tensor of neurons at the time instant n and perform the
contraction over all the indices (representing the neurons) connected to a chosen neuron.
Thus, this inner product operation followed by determining its sign/parity/polarity
(positive or negative value) gives us the state tensor at time instant n+1. This procedure is
repeated at all the neurons where the state is updated.
Remark
Throughout the research article, the notation “multidimensional neural network” is utilized.
The standard notation associated with tensors utilizes the term, “dimension” to represent
the number of values an independent variable can assume and the term, “order” to represent
the number of independent variables. Thus, the state tensor order represents the number
of independent dimensions in the multidimensional neural network, MN. The notational
confusion between the usage of terms “order”, “dimension” should be resolved from the
context.
Mathematical Model Description

Let MN be a multidimensional neural network of dimension m and order n, then MN is
uniquely specified by ( S, T ) where ( the number of neurons in each independent variable/
dimension/ order index is m )
S is a fully symmetric tensor of order 2n and dimension m . S, the connection structure
of multidimensional neural network, is a fully symmetric tensor in the following sense
Si 1, i 2,..., in ; j 1, j 2,..., jn = Sj 1, j 2,..., jn ; i 1, i 2,...,in (2.6)
for all {i1,i2,...,in}, {j1,j2,...,jn}. This captures the intuitive notion that the multidimensional
neural network has nodes which correspond to the multidimensional neurons. The
connectionist structure of the network, in the fully connected case, has a synaptic connection
from every neuron to every other neuron and thus specifies the number of order indices/
dimensions/variables of the fully symmetric tensor. Furthermore, it is fully symmetric
since there is a link between any two nodes and the weight attached to the link is the same
in both directions.
T is a tensor compatible with S such that each component is the threshold at the node
(i1, i2,...,in) of the multidimensional neural network.
Every node ( multidimensional neuron ) can be in one of the two possible states, either
+1 or –1. The state of node (i1, i2,...., in) at time t is denoted by Xi1, i2,..., in (t). The state of MN
at time t is the tensor Xi1, i2,..., in (t), where X is tensor of dimension m and order n. The state
evolution at node (i1, i2,...,in) is computed by
Xi 1, i 2,..., in (t + 1) = Sign ( Hi 1, i 2,..., in (t)), (2.7)
where,
m m
Hi 1, i 2,..., in (t) = ∑ ... ∑ Si 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn X j 1,..., jn (t) − Ti 1,..., in (t) (2.8)
j1= 1 jn = 1
The next state of the network Xi1,...,in (t +1) is computed from the current state by
performing the evaluation (2.7) at a subset of the nodes of the multidimensional neural
network, to be denoted by G. The modes of operation of the network are determined by
the method by which the subset G is selected in each time interval.
If the computation is performed at a single node in any time interval, i.e.|G| = 1, then
we will say that the network is operating in a serial mode, and if |G| = m n, then we will
say that the network is operating in a fully parallel mode. All other cases, i.e. 1 < |G| < m n,
will be called parallel modes of operation. Unlike a one dimensional neural network,
multidimensional neural network lends itself for various parallel modes of operation. It is
possible to choose G to be the set of neurons placed in each independent dimension or a
union of such sets. The set G can be chosen at random or according to some deterministic
rule. A state of the network is called stable if and only if
Xi 1,..., in (t) = Sign (S ⊗ Xi 1,..., in (t) − Ti 1,...iin ) (2.9)
where ⊗ denotes inner product i.e. outer product followed by contraction over the
appropriate indices. Once the network reaches such a state, there is no further change in
the state of the network no matter what the mode of operation is.
2.3 CONVERGENCE THEOREM FOR MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL

NETWORKS
Utilizing a fully symmetric tensor to represent the connection structure of a

multidimensional neural network, utilizing the notation of tensor products, in the
following, convergence theorem for an arbitrary multidimensional neural network
is stated and proved.
Theorem 2.1: Let MN = (S, T) be a multidimensional neural network of dimension m and
order n. S is a fully symmetric tensor of order 2n and dimension m with Si 1,..., in ; i 1,...,in ≥ 0 .
The network MN always converges to a stable state while operating in the serial mode
(i.e. there are no cycles in the state space) and to a cycle of length utmost 2 while operating
in a fully parallel mode (i.e. the cycles in the state space are of length ≤ 2 ).
Proof: Serial mode of operation of the multidimensional neural network is first considered.
In this mode of operation, during each time step of the operation of the neural network,
the state of only one neuron is updated. In other words, the state of each neuron is only
updated serially. At each multidimensional neuron in the network MN, the total synaptic
contribution from all neurons is first determined and its sign is determined to arrive at the
updated state of the neuron. Mathematically, this is achieved by computing the outer
product of the fully symmetric tensor S and the {+1, –1} state tensor of the multidimensional
neural network. In tensor notation, this is specified by
Ci 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn = Si 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn X j 1,..., jn . (2.10)
The total synaptic contribution at any neuron located at the location (i1, i2,..., in) is
determined by contracting the above outer product over all the indices {j1, j2,..., jn} i.e.
over all the neurons connected to it through the synaptic weights determined by the
components of the fully symmetric tensor S. The resultant scalar synaptic contribution
at any neuron (i1, i2,..., in) is thus determined by the inner product operation. The sign of
the resulting scalar constitutes the updated state of neuron. Thus, the state of any neuron
(i1, i2,..., in) in the multidimensional neural network in the serial mode of operation is
given by
m m
Xi 1, i 2,..., in ( k + 1) = Sign ( ∑ ... ∑ Ci 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn ( k ) − Ti 1,..., in ) (2.11)
j1= 1 jn = 1
= Sign (S ⊗ X(k ) − T ) (2.12)

where ⊗ is utilized as the symbol to denote the inner product between compatible tensors.
This symbol is sometimes suppressed and it should be understood from the context whether
inner product/outer product between the tensors is meant.
With the state updating scheme in the tensor notation specified, the energy function
that is optimized in the network MN is described. It is given by
m m m m
E = < X( k ), S ⊗ ( k ) > = ∑ .. ∑ ∑ .. ∑ Si 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn X i 1,..., in ( k ) X j 1,..., jn ( k ) (2.13)
i 1 = 1 in = 1 j 1 = 1 jn = 1
where < > denotes the inner product operator between the compatible tensors. It is
assumed in the above specification of the energy function of the neural network MN that
the threshold at each neuron is zero. This is no loss of generality, since by augmenting
the tensor S and the state tensor, the threshold values can be forced to be zero. It is easy
to see that such a thing can always be done by considering a one dimensional neural
network in which the threshold at each neuron is non-zero and arriving at a network in
which the threshold at each neuron can be made zero by augmenting the state vector as
well as the connection matrix.
Utilizing the definition of the above energy function of the network, let
∆E = E1 ( t + 1) − E1 ( t) , (discrete time index t instead of k is used) be the difference in the
energy associated with two consecutive states (transited in the serial mode of operation of
the multidimensional neural network ), and let ∆X i 1,....in denote the difference between the
next state and the current state of the node at location (i1, i2,..., in) at some arbitrary time t.
Clearly,
0, if, Xi1,..., in (t) = Sign (Hi1,...,in (t))
∆Xi 1,..., in = {−2, if, Xi 1,..., in (t) =1, and, Sign( Hi 1,...,in (t)) =− 1 (2.14)
+2, if, X i 1,..., in (t ) = −1, and, Sign ( H i 1,..., in (t ) = + 1

By assumption, the computation (2.14) is performed only at a single node at any given
time. Suppose this computation is performed at any arbitrary node at location
(i1, i2,..., in) ; then the difference in energy resulting from updating the network state is
given by
∆E = ∆Xi 1,..., in (∑
j1
..∑ Si 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn X j 1,..., jn + ∑ ..∑ Si 1,...,in ; j 1,..., jn Xi 1,...,in )
jn i1 in
+ Si 1,..., in ; i 1,...,in ∆Xi 1,..., in − 2∆Xi 1,..., in Ti 1,..., in (2.15)

Utilizing the fact that S is fully symmetric and the definition H i1,..., in (t), it follows that
∆E = 2 ∆Xi 1,..., in Hi 1,...,in + Si 1,...,in ;i 1+ ,...in ∆Xi 1,...., in (2.16)
Hence, since ∆Xi 1,..., in Hi 1,..., in ≥ 0 and Si 1,..., in i 1,..., in ≥ 0 , it follows that at every time instant,
∆E ≥ 0 . Thus, since the energy E is bounded from above by the appropriate norm of S, the
value of energy will converge. Now, it is proved in the following that convergence of
energy implies convergence to a stable state.
Once the energy in the network has converged, it is clear from the following facts that
the network will reach a stable state after utmost m 2n time intervals.
(a) if ∆X = 0 then it follows that ∆E = 0;
(b) if ∆X ≠ 0 , then ∆E = 0, only if the change in Xi 1,..., in (t) is from –1 to +1,

with Hi 1,..., in = 0.
In the fully parallel mode of operation of the network MN, the state updating scheme
for the state tensor of MN is given by
Xi 1,..., in (t + 1) = Sign (S ⊗ Xi 1,..., in (t) − Ti 1,..., in ) (2.17)
where ⊗ denotes the inner product between compatible tensors. Since, the serial mode proof
shows that a stable state is always reached with the above stated updating scheme, it is immediate
that by pairwise flipping of the values of any two dimension variables in the state tensor, the same
energy function value is attained. This, in turn implies that in the parallel mode of operation of a
multidimensional neural network, either a stable state is reached or a cycle of length utmost 2 is
reached (The two state tensors lead to the same value of the energy function). This approach to the
proof for the parallel mode of operation follows the one provided in reference. [Br G] Q. E. D
2.4 MULTIDIMENSIONAL LOGIC THEORY, LOGIC SYNTHESIS
One dimensional logic theory as well as logic synthesis deal with information processing
logic gates, logic circuits which operate on one dimensional arrays of zeroes and ones (or
more generally one dimensional arrays containing finitely many symbols ). The operations
performed by AND, OR , NOR, NAND, XOR gates have appropriate intuitive interpretation
in terms of the entries of the one dimensional arrays i.e. vectors. Any effort to generalize
the one dimensional logic operations to multidimensions leads to various heuristic
possibilities and requires considerable ingenuity in formalizing a definition. But, in the
following, utilizing the multidimensional neural network model described above, a formal/
mathematical procedure to multidimensional logic theory is described.
The input and output signal states of a multidimensional logic gate are related through
an energy function. Equivalently, the multidimensional logic functions are associated with
the local optimum of various energy functions defined over the set of input m-d arrays. In
view of the mathematical model of a multidimensional neural network described in section
3, it is most logical to define the minimum/ maximum energy states of a multidimensional
neural network (optimizing an energy function over the multidimensional hypercube ) to
correspond to the multidimensional logic gate functions operating on the input arrays.
Definition 2.1
A multidimensional logic function realized through a multidimensional logic gate (with
inputs and outputs) is defined to be the local minimum/maximum of the energy function
of an associated multidimensional neural network.
Equivalently, the local optima of the energy function of a multidimensional neural
network correspond to the logic functions that are realized through various logic gates.
The following detailed description is provided to consolidate the above definition vital
to multidimensional logic theory.
The logic functions which operate on the input array are identified to be the stable states
of a multidimensional neural network ( in multiple independent variables i.e. time, space
etc.). These are the transformations between a set of input states of a multidimensional neural
network which converge to a stable state on iteration of a multidimensional neural network.
In other words, in multiple independent variables, the mapping between the input states
and the stable states to which the network converges on iteration are defined to be the logic
functions realized by a multidimensional logic gate.
By the proof of the convergence theorem, the logic functions are invariants of a tensor on
the multidimensional hypercube. The definition of multidimensional logic function is illustrated
in Figure 2.1.
In the case of one dimensional logic theory, it has been shown that the set of stable
states of a neural network correspond to various one dimensional logic functions (CAB).
With the definition of multidimensional logic function stated and clarified in many
redundant ways above, multidimensional logic synthesis is described in the following.
Multidimensional Logic Synthesis

A multidimensional logic circuit consists of an arbitrary interconnection of
multidimensional logic gates. Multidimensional logic synthesis, as in one dimension,
involves synthesizing logic circuits for different purposes.
In view of the above definition of multidimensional logic functions defined through
the local optima of energy functions (realized through multidimensional neural networks),
it is natural to see if it is possible to associate energy functions with multidimensional
logic circuits. When such a scalar valued energy function can be associated with logic
circuits, the problem of multidimensional logic synthesis, is reduced to realizing such energy
functions. In the following, this important idea is developed.
A multidimensional logic circuit consists of interconnection of multidimensional logic
gates. But, the interconnection structure of a multidimensional logic gate is represented by
a fully symmetric tensor. Since, every two gates in a logic circuit need not necessarily be
connected to one another, a multidimensional logic circuit connection structure is
represented by a tensor of necessary/compatible order which is not necessarily fully
symmetric but it is required to be minimally symmetric. Thus, this block symmetric tensor
which is fully symmetric within the blocks (representing the connection structure of a
multidimensional neural network corresponding to a component logic gate) provides a
representation of multidimensional logic circuit. This tensor is utilized to associate
quadratic/higher degree energy functions with the multidimensional logic circuit. The set
of local optima of the energy functions constitute the stable states of one or more
interconnected logic gates. Thus, the set of input states (input pins) and output states (output
pins) of an entire multidimensional logic circuit are related through an energy function,
defined over the connection structure of a very high dimensional neural network. The set
of local optima of the energy function relating the input and output pins of a
multidimensional logic circuit realize various multidimensional logic functions.
From the above description, it is evident that the multidimensional logic synthesis
depends on how the multidimensional logic gates are connected to one another. The
structure of interconnection determines the structure of symmetric tensor representing
the multidimensional logic circuit. The essential result in multidimensional logic synthesis
is summarized through the following theorem.
Theorem 2.2: Given a multidimensional logic circuit, there exists a block symmetric
tensor S, representing the inter-connection structure of multidimensional neural
networks (modeling the multidimensional logic gates). The mapping between the input
and output states of a multidimensional logic circuit corresponds to that between input
tensors, local optima of energy function (quadratic/higher degree) represented by the
block symmetric tensor. The stable states of interconnected multidimensional neural
networks represent the multidimensional logic functions synthesized by the logic
circuit.
The proof of the above theorem follows from the convergence theorem and is avoided
for brevity.
The classification of multidimensional logic circuits is based on the type of transitions
allowed between the states in the multidimensional state space. The type of state transitions
fall into the following form:
(a) whether the next state reached depends on the past state only or not, as in one
dimensional logic synthesis,
(b) the type of neighbourhood of states about the current state on which the next state
reached depends. The type of neighbourhoods about the current state are classified
into few classes. These classes are similar to those utilized in the theory of random
fields, multidimensional image processing,
(c) the classification of trajectories transited by the multidimensional neural network
or a local optimum computing circuit/scheme.
In the above discussion, we considered quadratic forms as the energy functions
(motivated by the simplest possible neural network model) optimized by the logic gates,
which when connected together lead to logic circuits. This approach toward
multidimensional logic theory motivates the definition of more ‘general‘ switching/logic
functions as the local optimum of higher degree forms over the various subsets of
multidimensional lattice (hypercube, bounded lattice etc.).
Definition 2.2
A generalized logic function (representing a generalized logic gate or generalized logic
circuit) is defined as a mapping between an m -dimensional input array and the local
optimum of a tensor based form of degree greater than or equal to two, over various
subsets of multidimensional lattice (the multidimensional hypercube,
multidimensional bounded lattice). These local optimum of higher degree form (based
on a tensor) are realized through the stable states of a generalized multidimensional
neural network.
In (Rama 3) , it is shown that the strictly generalized logic function defined above has
better properties than the ordinary logic function described in Definition 4.1. The generalized
logic function is related to a multidimensional encoder utilized for communication through
multidimensional channels.
Now, with the generalized multidimensional logic gate defined above, logic synthesis
with these types of logic gates involves interconnection of them in certain topology.
This ordinary and generalized approach to multidimensional logic gate definition and
logic synthesis is depicted in Figures 2.1 to 2.3. Detailed documentation on logic synthesis
and design of future information processing machines is being pursued.
Proof: One dimensional neural network with state vector size infinity is uniquely defined
by (S, T) where S is an infinite dimensional (rows as well as columns) symmetric matrix
and T is an infinite dimensional vector of thresholds at all the neurons.
The state of the neural network at time t is a vector whose components are +1 and –1. The
next state of a node is computed by
Xi (t + 1) = Sign(Hi (t)) = + 1, if, Hi (t) ≥ 0 (2.18)
–1, otherwise
where,
∞
Hi (t ) = ∑ Sji X j (t ) − Ti (2.19)
j =1
The entries of S are such that the infinite sum in the above expression converges.
The next state of the network i.e. X ( t+1 ), is computed from the current state by
performing the evaluation (2.18) at a subset of the nodes of the network, to be denoted by
K. The mode of operation of the network is determined by the method by which the set K
is selected at each time interval i.e. if |K| = 1, then we will say that the network is operating
in a serial mode. Without loss of generality T = 0.
In the following, we consider the serial mode of operation. We argue that with the
above stated updating scheme at an arbitrary chosen neuron, the energy function (quadratic)
increases.
∞ ∞
E( k ) = ∑∑ Sij Xi ( k ) X j ( k ) (2.20)
i =1 j =1
Without loss of generality, consider the case where all the thresholds are set to zero. It
is easy to see (set the last component of state vector to –1 and appropriately augmented
entries of S) that for any finite L, we have
L L L L
∑∑ S
i =1 j =1
ij Xi ( k ) X j ( k ) ≤ ∑∑ S
i =1 j =1
ij Xi ( k + 1) X j ( k + 1) (2.21)
by the convergence theorem for one dimensional neural networks of order L, for any
arbitrary L. Now let L tend to infinity. Hence
∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
∑∑ Sij Xi (k) X j (k ) ≤
i =1 j =1
∑∑ S
i =1 j =1
ij Xi ( k + 1) X j ( k + 1) (2.22)
Thus, in the serial mode, the network converges to a stable state.

By the Convergence Theorem for one dimensional neural network (with the state vector
size finite) in the parallel mode of operation, if any finite set of nodes is state updated,
there is either convergence or existence of a cycle of length 2. Thus, when an infinite
dimensional vector is state updated in the parallel mode, for every finite segment of it,
either there is convergence or a cycle of length 2 (utmost two vectors for which the energy
values are the same) exists. Since, the energy function associated with the infinite
dimensional vector is the limit of those associated with the finite segments, it is evident
that the scalar energy values converge or a cycle of length utmost two exists. Q.E.D.
Now, we discuss briefly, the other infinite dimensional neural networks of dimension
infinity and order finite/infinite ( modeling tensor variables).
The following lemma is well known from the set theory.
Lemma 2.1: Countable union of countable sets is countable.

The above lemma implies that the convergence theorem proved above in association
with the convergence theorem for multidimensional neural networks (its proof argument
in section 3) provides us with the convergence proof for a large class of infinite dimensional
neural networks (dimension and/or order of tensors utilized in modeling is infinity). Details
on the convergence theorem for infinite dimensional neural networks are provided below.
Tensors utilized to represent the connection structure, state of neurons of infinite
dimensional neural network are such that the either the dimension or the order is finite/infinite
with not both of them being finite (either the dimension or the order or both are infinite ).
In one dimension, when the number of neurons is infinite and a quadratic energy function
is optimized through a neural network scheme, by a straightforward extension of the results
in (Rama 3), the stable states of the neural network constitute a graph-theoretic code (with
the length of the codeword being infinite). The set over which optimization is carried out is
the unbounded unit hypercube (countable number of entries in the infinite dimensional
state vector), a subset of the lattice ( based on one independent variable ).
The following theorem is concerned with the points on the lattice in multi/infinite dimensions.
This theorem is the infinite dimensional extension of the result proved in section 3.
Theorem 2.4: Let MN = (S, T) be an infinite dimensional neural network of order n/

infinite and dimension infinity (number of neurons in each dimension). S is a fully
symmetric tensor of dimension infinity and order 2n/infinity with Si 1,..., in ; i 1,...,in ≥ 0 .
The network MN always converges to a stable state while operating in a serial mode
(i.e., there are no cycles in the state space), while in the parallel mode, the network
will always converge to a stable state or to a cycle of length 2 (i.e., the cycles in the
state space are of length ≤ 2).
Proof: For a multidimensional neural network modeled by a tensor of dimension and
order finite, in the serial mode of operation, the network always converges to a stable
state. Since, the quadratic energy function is a scalar value defined over the connection
tensor (whose order, dimension are finite ), by letting the dimension and/or order tend to
infinity in (2.13), it is immediate that the energy function value increases in the serial mode
until a stable state is reached starting in a certain initial state. Thus, for various infinite
dimensional neural networks considered, convergence to a stable state in the serial mode
of operation is ensured ( i.e. there are no cycles in the state space ).
In the parallel mode of operation of the infinite dimensional neural network, by the
same reasoning as in Theorem (2.1), the network will always converge to a stable state or
to a cycle of length 2 depending on the order of the network ( i.e. the cycles in the state
space are of length less than or equal to 2). Q.E.D
As in the case of multidimensional logic theory, the above convergence theorem is
utilized as the basis to describe infinite dimensional logic theory as well as logic
synthesis. It should be noted that the infinite dimensional logic synthesis only has
theoretical importance. Brief discussion on infinite dimensional versions is provided
for the sake of completeness.
Definition 2.3
An infinite dimensional logic function realized through an infinitedimensional logic gate
(with inputs and outputs) is defined to be the local minimum/maximum of the energy
function of an associated infinitedimensional neural network. Equivalently, the local optima
of the energy function of an Infinitedimensional neural network correspond to the logic
functions that are realized through various logic gates.
With the above definition of infinite dimensional logic function, detailed results in
infinite dimensional logic synthesis are being developed along the lines of those in
multidimensional logic synthesis. Brief description is provided in the following for the
sake of completeness.
An infinitedimensional logic circuit consists of an arbitrary interconnection of
infinitedimensional logic gates. Infinitedimensional logic synthesis, as in one dimension
involves synthesizing logic circuits for different purposes. These infinite dimensional logic
circuits only have theoretical implementations. Infinitedimensional logic synthesis depends
on how the infinitedimensional logic gates are connected to one another. The structure of
interconnection determines the structure of symmetric tensor (order and/or dimension is
infinity) representing the infinitedimensional logic circuit.
2.6 NEURAL NETWORKS, LOGIC THEORIES, CONSTRAINED STATIC

OPTIMIZATION
Multidimensional neural networks provide a computational paradigm to determine the

local optima of quadratic as well as higher degree forms defined in terms of tensors
(including matrices) over various subsets of the multidimensional lattice. These units which
map a multidimensional array/tensor to a local optimum (stable state of the
multidimensional neural network), thus constitute the multidimensional logic gates.
Interconnection of such multidimensional logic gates constitutes a multidimensional logic
circuit. Thus, multidimensional logic circuits are interconnected multidimensional neural
networks. The interconnection structure weights are represented through a symmetric

tensor. Thus, multidimensional logic theory/logic synthesis are associated with the theory
of multidimensional neural networks. These theories are in turn related to static
optimization of various forms (quadratic as well as higher degree) over different subsets
of lattice and other sets.
Various constrained static optimization problems that are of interest in different
applications (neural networks, logic theories etc.) are summarized below:
(1) Optimization of a quadratic form in finitely many variables over the one
dimensional hypercube (one independent variable),
(2) Optimization of a higher degree form in finitely many variables over the one
dimensional hypercube (one independent variable),
(3) Optimization of a quadratic form over the infinite dimensional (size of the state
vector) hypercube in one dimension,
(4) Optimization of a higher degree form over the infinite dimensional (size of the
state vector) hypercube in one dimension,
(5) Optimization of a quadratic form over the finite/infinite dimensional hypercube
in finitely/infinitely many dimensions,
(6) Optimization of a higher degree form over the finite/infinite dimensional
hypercube in finitely/infinitely many dimensions,
(7) Optimization of a quadratic form over a bounded lattice in finitely/infinitely
many dimensions,
(8) Optimization of a higher degree form over a bounded lattice in finitely/infinitely
many dimensions,
(9) Optimization of a quadratic form over the unbounded lattice in finitely/infinitely
many dimensions,
(10) Optimization of a higher degree form over the unbounded lattice in finitely/
infinitely many dimensions.
When the constraint set is the lattice (unbounded lattice) in finitely/infinitely many
dimensions and the number of state variables is not finite but countable, the objective
function is a power series each of whose terms is a quadratic/higher degree form. It is
proved in (Rama 3) that some of the constrained optimization problems arise in the design
of multi/infinite dimensional codes. In (Rama 4), various optimization problems described
above are utilized in dynamic optimization setting.
In the following , various innovative themes in multi/infinite dimensional neural
networks are briefly discussed.
Continuous Time Neural Networks

The well known model of a neural network is a discrete time system in one or multiple
dimensions. A signal design problem for optical/magnetic recording channels modeled as
linear systems, led to the discovery of continuous time neural networks ( Rama 5). The state
updating scheme of the continuous time neural network takes the following form
T
X(t) = Sign ( ∫ R(t , s) X( s) ds) (2.23)

0
In this technical memorandum, the author for the first time associates energy functions
with the state updating scheme. The multidimensional versions of these continuous time
neural networks are discussed in (Rama 4).
Complex Neural Networks

Neural networks in which the entries of the connection structure as well as state variables
(indicating the binary states of the neuronal networks) are complex valued are already studied
in one dimension. These results have the corresponding multidimensional versions. These
results parallel the results for real neural networks. These results are aided by the fact that
the quadratic form associated with a Hermitian symmetric matrix is always real and thus the
eigenvalues of the Hermitian symmetric matrix are always real.
Adaptive Neural Networks

These are neural networks in which the connection structure of the one/multidimensional
neural network is varying with discrete/continuous time index. More explicitly, the
connection tensor whose elements constitute the synaptic weights between the neurons
that are located in one/two/multiple dimensions is varying with the time index in some
orderly ( or random ) manner. The analysis of such one/multidimensional neural networks
is being studied.
2.7 CONCLUSIONS
A mathematical model of an arbitrary multidimensional neural network is described. This
model is utilized to prove the convergence theorem for multidimensional neural networks.
Utilizing the convergence theorem, multidimensional logic functions are defined and
multidimensional logic synthesis is discussed. Infinite dimensional logic synthesis is briefly
described. Various constrained static optimization problems of utility in control,
communication, computation and other applications are summarized. Several innovative
themes on one/multidimensional neural networks are summarized.
REFERENCES
(BoT) A. I. Borisenko and I. E. Tarapov, “Vector and Tensor Analysis with Applications,“ Dover
Publications Inc., New York,
(BrG) J.Bruck and J.W. Goodman, “A Generalized Convergence Theorem for Neural
Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 34, No. 5, Sept 88.
(CAB) S.T. Chakradhar, V.D. Aggarwal and M.L. Bushnell, “Neural Models and Algorithms
for Digital Testing”, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
(HoT) J. J. Hopfield and D. W. Tank, “Neural Computations of Decisions in Optimization
Problems,“ Biological Cybernetics., Vol. 52, pp. 41-52, 1985.
(Rama 1) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Logic Synthesis,“ Manuscript
in Preparation.
(Rama 2) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Unified Theory of Control, Communication and
Computation-Part 1,” Manuscript to be submitted to IEEE Proceedings.
(Rama 3) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Coding Theory: Multi/Infinite
Dimensional Neural Networks: Constrained Static Optimization,” Proceedings of 2002 IEEE
Information Theory Workshop, October 2002.
(Rama 4) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Optimal Control, Codeword, Logic Function Tensors—
Multidimensional Neural Networks, International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and
Informatics, October 2006, pages 9-17.
(Rama 5) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Signal Design for Magnetic and Optical Recording Channels:
Spectra of Bounded Functions, “ Bellcore Technical Memorandum, TM-NWT-018026.
Multi/Infinite Dimensional Coding Theory: Multi/Infinite Dimensional Neural Networks 27
CHAPTER
3
Multi/Infinite Dimensional
Coding Theory: Multi/Infinite
Dimensional Neural
Networks
Networks— —Constrained Static
Optimization
3.1. INTRODUCTION
In the recent years, technological developments in parallel data transfer mechanisms led
to HIPPI (high performance parallel interface), SMMDS (switched multi-megabit data
service), FDDI (fiber distributed data interface). To match these high speed parallel data
transfer mechanisms, multidimensional coding theory has been originated and some ad
hoc procedures were developed for designing linear as well as non-linear codes.
Multidimensional codes are utilized to encode arrays of symbols for transmission over
a multidimensional communication channel. Thus, the central objective in multidimensional
coding theory is to design codes that can correct many errors and whose encoding/decoding
procedures are computationally efficient. A multidimensional error correcting code can
be described by an energy landscape, with the peaks of the landscape being the codewords.
The decoding of a corrupted codeword (array) which is a point in the energy landscape
that is not a peak is equivalent to looking for the closest peak in the energy landscape. An
alternative way to describe the problem is to design a constellation which consists of a set of
points on a multidimensional lattice that are enclosed within a finite region, in such a way
that a certain optimization constraint is satisfied.
Neural network model, simulated annealing, relaxation techniques are some of the various
computation models (based on optimization) that have been attracting much interest because
they seem to have properties similar to those of biological and physical systems. The standard
computation performed in a neural network is the optimization of the energy function. The state
space of a neuro-dynamical system can be described by the topography defined by the energy
function associated with the network. The connection structure of a neural network can either
be distributed on a plane or in multidimensions (Rama 2).
Thus, the field of multidimensional neural network theory and the field of
multidimensional coding theory are linked through the common thread of optimization of
multivariate polynomials (tensor based) over various subsets of the multidimensional

lattice. In a nut shell, multidimensional error correcting codes and multidimensional neural
networks can be associated with such polynomials.
In contrast to the traditional ad hoc attempts to design multidimensional codes by a
generation of researchers, the author for the first time discovered and formalized the idea of
utilizing the theory of tensor spaces to represent and study multidimensional error correcting codes.
The theory of tensor spaces enables the design of codes in one dimension (encoding as
well as decoding techniques) to be translated to multi/infinite dimensions.
Utilizing this representation, the author took a significant step forward in formally
demonstrating the relationship between multidimensional neural networks,
multidimensional codes and optimization of multivariate polynomials/monomials over
various subsets of multidimensional lattice. This relationship provides new insights into the
design of multidimensional encoders as well as decoders. Also, the relationships between
concepts such as minimum distance, correctable errors of multidimensional codes can be
derived through new proof arguments. Furthermore, the relationship enables the utilization
of multidimensional decoding techniques for the solution of optimization of multivariate
polynomials over the multidimensional hypercube ( other subsets of multidimensional lattice),
a difficult problem that arises in various applied fields such as operations research, theoretical
computer science etc. Also, utilizing the powerful techniques developed in these applied
areas for such problems, new algorithms for maximum likelihood decoding of
multidimensional error correcting codes can be designed.
Thus, the results in this chapter are summarized in the following three paragraphs.
The concepts of multidimensional neural networks, multidimensional error correcting
codes, optimization of quadratic/higher degree forms based on components of a tensor
(tensor component based multivariate polynomials), over various subsets of
multidimensional lattice, are related from different viewpoints.
It is proved that given a multidimensional linear block code, a neural network
(generalized neural network) can be constructed in such a way that every local maximum
of the energy function corresponds to a codeword tensor and every codeword tensor
corresponds to a local maximum. It is shown that determining the global maximum of the
energy function of a multidimensional neural network/generalized neural network is
equivalent to performing the maximum likelihood decoding in a linear block
multidimensional code. The results are generalized to multidimensional non-linear as well
as non-binary codes.
Theorems related to optimization of tensor based multivariate polynomials (terms/
monomials are based on the components of tensors) over arbitrary open/closed sets are
proved. Infinite dimensional extension of the results is briefly discussed.
This chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, after briefly reviewing the theory
of multidimensional neural networks, it is proved that finding the global optimum of
the energy function of the network is equivalent to finding a minimum cut in a certain
graphoid, the connection structure of a multidimensional neural network. In section 2, a

connection between the multidimensional neural network model and graphoid based
codes is established. It is shown that maximum likelihood decoding in a graphoid based
code is equivalent to finding a minimum cut in a certain graphoid. Thus, it is shown that
maximum likelihood decoding in a graphoid based code is equivalent to finding a
maximum of the energy function in a multidimensional neural network. In section 3, the
results are extended to general multidimensional linear block codes. A general energy
function, not necessarily quadratic, is defined based on the generator tensor of a given
linear block code. It is proved that finding the global maximum of the energy function is
equivalent to maximum likelihood decoding in the code. In section 3, it is briefly discussed
how the infinite dimensional codes are represented through the infinite order/dimension
(either the order or the dimension or both is infinite) generator tensor (the entries of
which satisfy some regularity conditions) and thus enable the infinite dimensional
versions of the results to be derived. In section 4, the energy function associated with the
parity check tensor of the multidimensional linear block code is described. When the
tensor is written in the systematic form, it is shown that each codeword tensor corresponds
to a local maximum of the multivariate polynomial associated with the parity check
tensor and that each local maximum corresponds to a codeword tensor. The results are
interpreted as the dual to the ones in the previous section for defining the Maximum
Likelihood Decoding (MLD) problem. In section 5, the results are generalized to non-
binary codes. Further, in section 6, the results are generalized to non-linear
multidimensional codes. In section 7, by means of a decomposition principle, theorems
related to optimization of tensor based (based on the components of a tensor) multivariate
polynomials over arbitrary open/closed sets are proved. Also, various innovative ideas
on the utilization of results in previous sections, to derive very general results in static
optimization are described. The chapter concludes with a summary of results derived.
The results in this chapter are exactly the multidimensional versions of those in (BrB).
3.2 MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS: MINIMUM CUT

COMPUTATION IN THE CONNECTION STRUCTURE: GRAPHOID CODES
A discrete time multidimensional neural network is a discrete time dynamical system

represented by a weighted undirected connectionist structure in multidimensions. At each
multidimensional neuronal element, there is a threshold value which will fire each neuron
on crossing it. Each neuronal element computes an algebraic threshold function in the
input variables.
Let MN be a multidimensional neural network of dimension m and order n; then MN is
uniquely specified by (S, T) where ( the number of neurons in each dimension is m i.e. the
number of values assumed by each independent dimension variable) S is fully symmetric
tensor of dimension m and order 2n, and T is a tensor of thresholds attached to neuronal
elements with compatible order ( n ) and dimension ( m ). Every node can be in one of two
possible states +1 and –1. The state of node ( i1, i 2,..., in ) at time t is denoted by Xi 1, i 2..., in (t) .
The state of MN at time t is the tensor X i1, i2,...1. in (t)of dimension m and order n. The state
evolution at node ( i1, i 2,..., in ) is computed by
Xi 1, i 2,..., in (t + 1) = Sign (Hi 1, i 2,..., in (t )) (3.1)
where
m m
Hi 1,..., in (t ) = ∑ ... ∑ Si1,..., in; j1,..., jn X j1, j 2,..., jn (t) − Ti1,..., in (t)
j1= 1 jn = 1
The next state of the network i.e. X i1, i2,..., in (t + 1), is computed from the current state by
performing the evaluation (3.1) at a subset of nodes of the multidimensional neural network,
to be denoted by G. The modes of operation are determined by the method by which the
subset G is selected in each time interval. If the computation (3.1) is performed at a single
node in any time interval i.e. G| = 1 , then we will say that the network is operating in the
serial mode, and if G|= mn , then we will say that the network is operating in the fully
parallel mode. A state is called stable if and only if
Xi 1, i 2,..., in (t) = Sign (S ⊗ Xi 1,..., in (t) − Ti 1,..., in ) (3.2)
where ⊗ denotes inner product (the symbol is sometimes suppressed for notational brevity).
Once a neural network reached such a state there is no change in the state of the network
no matter what the mode of operation is.
An important feature of the network MN is the convergence theorem stated below.
Theorem 3.1: Let MN = (S, T) be a multidimensional neural network of dimension m and
order n. S is a fully symmetric tensor of order 2n and dimension m . The network MN
always converges to a stable state while operating in the serial mode (i.e. there are no
cycles in the state space) and to a cycle of length utmost 2 while operating in the fully
parallel mode.( i.e. cycles in the state space are of length utmost 2 ).
This theorem is proved in (Rama 2). This theorem suggests the utilization of MN as a
device for performing a local search of the optimum of an energy function. In the following,
we formulate a problem that is equivalent to determining the global maximum of an energy
function and how to map it onto a multidimensional neural network.
Definition 3.1
Let G = (V, E) be a weighted and undirected non-planar graph in multidimensions where
V denotes the set of nodes of G and E denotes the set of edges of G. Let K be the fully
symmetric tensor whose components are the weights of the edges of G.
Let V1 be a subset of V, and let V–1 = V–V1. The set of edges each of which is incident at
a node inV1 and at a node in V–1 is called a cut in G.
Definition 3.2
The weight of a cut is the sum of its edge weights. A minimum cut (MC) of a non-planar
graph/graphoid is a cut with minimum weight.
In the following, we show the equivalence between the minimum cut problem in a
graphoid (from now onwards, we call the connection structure of a multidimensional neural
network also as a graphoid ) and the problem of maximizing the quadratic form as the
energy function of a multidimensional neural network. Every non-planar graph including
the connection structure of a multidimensional neural network is a Graphoid (by definition).
Theorem 3.2: Let MN = (S, T) be a multidimensional neural network with all the thresholds
being zero i.e. T = 0. The problem of finding a state V for which the quadratic energy
function E is maximum is equivalent to finding a minimum cut in the graphoid
corresponding to MN.
Proof: Since T = 0, the energy function is given by
m m m m
E= ∑ ... ∑ ∑ ... ∑ S
i1= 1 in = 1 j 1 = 1 jn = 1
i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., in Xi 1,..., in X j 1,..., jn (3.3)
Let (i1,i2,...,in) = i,(j1,...,jn) = j. Let S + + denote the sum of weights of edges in MN

with both the end points being in the same vertex set of the cut i.e. i=j =1, and let S − − ;
S + − denote the corresponding sums of the other two cases. It follows that
E = 2 ( S++ + S− − − S+− )
which can also be written as
E = 2 ( S++ + S− − + S+− ) – 4 S+ – (3.4)
Since, the first term in the above equation is constant (it is the sum of weights of the
edges), it follows that the maximization of E is equivalent to the minimization of S+–.
Clearly, S+– is the weight of the cut in MN with V1 being the nodes of MN with a state
equal to 1. Q. E. D.
Graphoid Based Codes

In this sub section, relationship between multidimensional neural networks and error
correcting codes based on graphoids is investigated. The ‘multidimensional error correcting
codes’ associated with graphoids (connection structure of a multidimensional neural
network ), are called “graphoid-theoretic” codes.
The family of graphoid codes are defined based on the tensors naturally associated with
the connection structure of a multidimensional neural network with nodes as well as edges.
Let G = (V, E) be an undirected connectionist structure of a multidimensional neural
network with weights on the edges. Like a graph in the plane, this is a representation for a
non-planar graph type structure called graphoid (not necessarily the connection structure
of a multidimensional neural network). Consider a fully symmetric tensor of dimension m
and order 2n; which is utilized to describe the connection structure of a multidimensional
neural network.
A subset of the set of edges of G can be represented by a characteristic tensor of order 2n
with the edge between two nodes Vi 1, i 2,..., in , Vj 1, j 2..., jn , leading to an entry of +1 at those locations
in the tensor. Thus, an edge characteristic tensor of a graphoid E is defined such that
 1 if an edge is incident between

Eˆ i1,..., in; j1,..., jn 
=  nodes(i1,...., in )and ( j1,...., jn ). (3.5)
 0 otherwise.

Definition 3.3
The incidence tensor of a graphoid G = (V , E ) is a block tensor of the form
TVˆ1 
 
TVˆ2 
DGˆ = . 
.. 
  (3.6)
TVˆ 
 n
 
where TVˆ represents the tensor of the set of edges incident upon the node Vi . It should be
i
noted that the incidence tensor is a blocked tensor and the above illustration is shown to
aid the imagination of the reader.
Various concepts associated with planar graphs are utilized as the basis to define the
following concepts associated with a graphoid (non-planar). They provide the notation
associated with graphoid theoretic codes.
The following lemmas are very easy to verify.
Lemma 3.1: The set of characteristic tensors that correspond to the cuts in a connection
structure G = (V , E ) of a multidimensional neural network form a linear tensor/m-d vector
(depending on the notational convenience) space over GF(2) in multidimensions of
dimension ( V − 1) .
The linear tensor/m-d vector space that corresponds to the cuts of a graphoid Ĝ will
be called the only cut space of Ĝ . Furthermore, the circuits in a graphoid also constitute a
linear tensor/vector space.
Lemma 3.2: Given a connected graphoid G = (V , E ) ; the incidence tensor of Ĝ has rank
( V − 1) . Every block tensor in DĜ associated with a node is a characteristic tensor of a cut
( )
and every Vˆ − 1 block tensors of DĜ corresponding to different vertices/nodes of the
graphoid form a basis for the cut space of Ĝ .
Hence, given a connection structure Ĝ , the cut space of the graphoid is a
multidimensional linear block code of dimension Vˆ − 1 . ( )
For the sake of brevity, in the following, we only consider ‘cut codes’.
Given a graphoid, Ĝ , an interesting question is how to formulate the maximum
likelihood decoding (MLD) problem of the code CĜ in a graphoid-theoretic language.
( )
That is, given a graphoid Ĝ = Vˆ , Eˆ and a (0, 1) tensor Y of dimension m and order
2n; what is the codeword in C closest to Y in Hamming distance?
Ĝ
The following lemmas will answer the questions.
Hamming Distance: Given two (0,1) tensors, X, Y; the Hamming distance between m
dimensional tensors of order 2n is the number of places where they differ.
This definition is motivated by transmitting a binary tensor X through a noisy
multidimensional channel, observing the output Y and counting the number of errors that have
occurred.
( )
Lemma 3.3: Let Ĝ = Vˆ , Eˆ be a graphoid. Let CĜ be the multidimensional code associated
with Ĝ . Let Y be a (0,1) tensor of order 2n (dimension m). Construct a new graphoid, to be
defined/denoted by Ĝ Y; by assigning weights to the edges of Ĝ as follows:
Wi1, i2,..., in; j1,..., jn = (–1) Yi1,..., in; j1,..., jn ((−1)Power…) (3.7)
Wi 1, i 2,..., in ; j 1,..., jn is the weight associated with the edge (i1,..., in ; j1,..., jn ) in Ĝ . Then the
maximum likelihood decoding of the tensor Y with respect to CĜ is equivalent to finding
the minimum cut in Gˆ Y .
Proof: Assume the number of ones in Y is b. Let P be an arbitrary codeword in CG. Let L i,j denote
the number of positions in which P contains an i ∈ {0, 1} and Y contains a j ∈ {0,1}. Clearly,
b = L0,1 + L1,1 (3.8)
Thus,
−L1,1 + L1, 0 = L0,1 − b + L1,0 (3.9)
= L0,1 + L1,0 − b (3.10)
Minimizing the right hand side of the above expression over all P ∈ C G is equivalent to
finding a codeword which is the closest to Y. On the other hand, minimizing the left hand
side is equivalent to finding the minimum cut in G Y. Q.E.D
From the above lemma, the following theorem follows.
( )
Theorem 3.3: Let Ĝ = Vˆ , Eˆ be a graphoid. Then, maximum likelihood decoding of a
tensor word Y with respect to CĜ is equivalent to finding the maximum of the quadratic
energy function E of the multidimensional neural network defined by the graphoid Gˆ Y
with all its threshold values equal to zero.
Proof: By Lemma 3.3, maximum likelihood decoding of Y with respect to C Ĝ is equivalent
to finding the minimum cut in Gˆ Y . By Theorem 3.2, finding the minimum cut in a graphoid
is equivalent to finding the global maximum of the energy function (quadratic) of a
multidimensional neural network defined by a graphoid with all the thresholds at each
neuronal element set to zero. Q.E.D.
Graphoid based error correcting codes are very limited since the connection structure
of a multidimensional neural network is represented by a fully symmetric tensor. This
imposes restrictions on the minimum distance of multidimensional codes. Thus, a natural
question that arises is whether the equivalence stated above in the Theorem 3.3 can be
generalized to arbitrary multidimensional linear block codes.
Graphoid codes arose naturally out of the topological properties of the connection structure
of a multidimensional neural network. The connection structure required a fully symmetric
tensor to represent it. The neural network model enabled the association of a quadratic energy
function with the fully symmetric tensor and its optimization over the multidimensional
hypercube. Thus, the encoders and decoders of graphoid codes are defined through topological
structure and optimization of multivariate polynomials. Since, an arbitrary tensor like the fully
symmetric tensor constitutes a linear operator, unlike graphoid codes, arbitrary
multidimensional linear codes are first defined through their algebraic structure in the next
section. Then the maximum likelihood decoding problem of such codes is discussed.
3.3 MULTIDIMENSIONAL ERROR CORRECTING CODES: ASSOCIATED

ENERGY FUNCTIONS—GENERALIZED NEURAL NETWORKS
Recent advances in high speed parallel data transfer mechanisms based on light wave/
optical networks motivated the design and analysis of multidimensional codes. Several
researchers utilized ad hoc techniques (sometimes pseudo-mathematical techniques) to
design and analyze multidimensional codes based on the extensions of the ideas in one
dimensional error control coding theory.
The author for the first time developed the idea of utilizing ‘tensor linear operator’ for
the design and analysis of multi/infinite dimensional linear as well as non-linear codes
conceived as sub-spaces over tensor spaces.
A multidimensional linear codeword constellation is defined as the subspace of a tensor

linear space defined through the generator tensor. The encoding operation of a
multidimensional (m, n ; m,l) linear code, defined by an m dimensional (n+l) order generator
tensor Gi 1, i 2,..., in ; j 1, j 2,..., jl is performed in the following manner:
An m dimensional information tensor of order n, Bi1, i2,..., in (with 0, 1 symbols) is encoded
into the m-dimensional “codeword tensor”, C j 1, j 2,..., jl (constellation member) of order ‘l’ by
the following tensor inner product (outer product followed by contraction over appropriate
indices) scheme:
Bi 1, i 2,...., in ⊗ Gi 1, i 2,...., in ; j 1, j 2,..., jl = C j 1, j 2,..., jl (3.11)
where ⊗ denotes the inner product operation (between tensors defined over a finite field)
by means of exclusive or operation between the components of outer product of tensors
(contraction over appropriate indices of the sum of products of binary variables).
The above procedure of generating the codeword tensor from an information tensor leads to
the following interesting considerations which are inherent to multidimensional code design.
In one dimension, a binary information vector of length k is encoded into a codeword
vector of length n by padding the parity bits to it. The parity check equations obtained
through the parity check matrix determine these bits. In the case of two/multidimensional
array of information bits, there are many ways to encode the array into a codeword array.
Even in the simplest two dimensional array case, by padding a border of parity bits along
the row wise as well as column wise directions, the codeword array can be generated. In
the following, this degree of freedom in multidimensional coding is formally described.
A multidimensional information array (information tensor) is mapped into a codeword
array in the following ways:
(1) An m-dimensional information tensor of order n is mapped into an m-dimensional
codeword tensor of order l (l > n),
(2) An m -dimensional information tensor of order n is mapped into k -dimensional
codeword tensor (k > m ) of order n,
(3) An m-dimensional information tensor of order n is mapped into a k -dimensional
(k > m) codeword tensor of order l (l > n).
For the purpose of notational convenience, in the following encoding through the
operation (1) is only utilized. It is easy to realize that by transposing the information as
well as generator tensors, the operation (2) in encoding is achieved. But to encode an
information tensor into a generator tensor through the operation (3), a second generator
type tensor is utilized.
Various ideas familiar in one dimensional coding theory (parity check matrices,
primitive polynomials, basis, cosets etc.) have corresponding parallels in multi/infinite
dimensional coding theory based on the tensor linear operator defined over a finite field.
The detailed translation from one dimensional encoding/decoding algorithms to
multidimensional encoding/decoding algorithms is done by utilizing tensor algebra

concepts with parallel linear algebra concepts.
Infinite Dimensional Codes

Now let us consider infinite dimensional codes. An infinite dimensional tensor can be of
the following types: (a) the dimension of the tensor is finite, whereas the order is infinite,
(b) the dimension of the tensor is infinite, whereas the order is finite, (c) the dimension as
well as order of the tensor are infinite.
An infinite dimensional code can be generated in the following manner. It is assumed
that the generator tensor of the code is such that either the dimension or the order or both
are infinite. Also, it is assumed that the entries of the generator/information tensor satisfy
the regularity conditions necessary to ensure that the inner product makes sense
(convergence of the partial sums of outer product to a limit etc.).
(i) An information tensor of finite dimension/order is mapped into a codeword
tensor of infinite dimension/order. This type of encoding can happen in practical
multidimensional communication systems,
(ii) An infinite dimension/order ( or both are infinite) tensor is mapped into a
codeword tensor with either the dimension or the order or both being infinity.
In the above encoding schemes, the generator/parity check tensors are of compatible
dimension/order (with the information tensor being encoded) to ensure that a proper
infinite dimensional codeword is generated.
Infinite dimensional extensions of the results in sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (to be described in
the following paragraphs) follow from the immediate extensions of the formal arguments
to infinite dimensional tensors that satisfy the regularity conditions. They are not explicitly
repeated.
In the following, a very brief summary of multidimensional information theory is
provided as it is based on the tensor linear space structure idea necessary to model
multidimensional arrays.
Multi/Infinite Dimensional Information Theory

In one dimension, a mathematical theory of communication is developed utilizing the
concepts of information/entropy associated with a random variable, conditional entropy,
joint entropy etc. These concepts are the vital tools to prove the noiseless channel coding
theorem. Various channel models are developed. The concepts of mutual information,
capacity of a discrete memoryless channel are utilized to prove the second channel coding
theorem. One dimensional information theory then led to rate distortion theory.
In multidimensions, a source generates multidimensional arrays of information which
pass through a multidimensional channel. A multidimensional independent, identically
distributed information array of symbols is associated with the concept of entropy H
(Xi1, i2,..., in) in the following manner:
m m
H (Xi 1, i 2,..., in ) = ∑ ...∑ Pi1, i 2,..., in log (1 Pi1, i 2,..., in )
i1= 1 in = 1
(3.12)
Given the basic idea of the above definition, results from one dimension are generalized
to multidimensions utilizing the principles described in (Rama 3). Complex sources such
as a Markovian Source require some sophistication in defining the entropy/uncertainty of
the source. The interesting channel model in multidimensions is the discrete memoryless
channel represented through a stochastic tensor whose elements are conditional
probabilities Pj 1,..., jl , i 1,..., ik . This corresponds to a Markov random field. Detailed theorems
are derived utilizing the principles described in (Rama 3).
With the multidimensional encoding scheme formally described, it is proved in the
following that the maximum likelihood decoding problem of a multidimensional linear
block code is equivalent to the maximization of multivariate polynomial (whose terms/
monomials are described in terms of the entries of received, generator tensors) associated
with the generator/received tensors over the multidimensional hypercube.
The essential idea in the derivation of the desired result is (generalization of Theorem
3.3 to arbitrary multidimensional linear codes) to represent the symbols of the additive
group as symbols in the multiplicative group through the following transformation:
a → ( − 1) a i .e . 0 → 1, 1 → − 1 . (3.13)
Thus, the information tensor Bi 1,..., in is represented by the tensor Xi 1,..., in , where the
Bi 1,...in
component Xi 1,..., in = (–1) . The encoded codeword C j 1,..., jl is thus represented by the
tensor Yj 1,..., jl . Hence, a component of the tensor Y is given by
m m
= ∏ ...∏ X i 1,....,
C j1 ,...., jl G ; j1,...... jl
Yj1, j2 ,.... Jl = ( −1) i1,.....,in
in (3.14)
i1 = 1 in = 1
Definition 3.4
In the {1, –1} representation of a multidimensional linear code, instead of a generator tensor,
given an information tensor Xi 1,..., in , an encoding procedure X → Y is utilized, where the
tensor Y j1,..., jl is such that Y j1,..., jl component is a monomial that consists of a subset of the
X i1,..., in . An encoding procedure is systematic if and only if Y j1,..., js = X j1,..., js for 1 < s < n.
Definition 3.5
Let Gi1, i 2,..., in ; j1, j 2,...., jl be a generator tensor of ones and zeroes. The polynomial representation
of generator tensor G with respect to a {+1, –1} received tensor of dimension m and order
l, W denoted by E is,
m m
EW ( X ) =W ⊗ ∏...∏ X i1,...,in (3.15)
i1 = 1 in =1
= W ⊗Y (X ) (3.16)
where ⊗ denotes inner product between the tensors (i.e. outer product of the tensors
followed by contraction over appropriate indices).
Consider the linear multidimensional block code defined by the generator tensor G (or
equivalently by the encoding procedure associated with G ). The polynomial representation
of G i.e. EW ( X ), will be called the energy function of W with respect to the encoding
procedure X → Y .
To establish the connection between the energy functions (optimized by neural/
generalized neural networks over various subsets of the multidimensional lattice) and linear
multidimensional block codes, we will prove that finding the global maximum of EW (X) is
equivalent to maximum likelihood decoding of a tensor W with respect to the code C.
Theorem 3.4: Given an ( m, l ; m, n ) multidimensional linear block code C defined by an

encoding procedure X → Y , and a tensor W of ones and minus ones i.e. a {+1, –1} tensor,
the closest codeword (in Hamming distance) to W in C corresponds to an information
tensor B if and only if
EW (B) = Maximum overall tensors X of {EW(X)}. (3.17)
Proof: For an { +1, –1 } information tensor,X the scalar energy function is given by
EW (X) = W ⊗ Y(X) (3.18)
= {( j1, j 2,..., jl ): W j1,..., jl = Y j1,..., jl ( X )}
(3.19)
− {( j1,..., jl ): W j1,...., jl ≠ Y j1,...., jl ( X )}
= ml
− 2 {( j 1,... jl ): Wj 1,..., jl ≠ Yj 1,..., jl (X )}
= ml − 2 dH (W , Y) (3.20)
where d H denotes the Hamming distance between the multidimensional codewords W, Y .
From the above expression, EW ( B ) will achieve a maximum if and only if d H (W , Y) achieves
a minimum. Q. E. D.
Minimum Distance of Linear Multidimensional Block Codes

Given an encoding procedure, we can use the same argument as in the above theorem, to
express the minimum distance of the code. Consider the encoding procedure:
X = (Xi 1,..., in ) → Y = (Yj 1,..., jl ) (3.21)
and the energy function with W, a tensor with all the components equal to one.
m m
EW (X ) = ∑ ...∑ Yj1 ,..., jl
j1= 1 jl = 1
(3.22)
i.e. sum of all the components of tensor Y.

As in Theorem 3.4,
EW ( X ) = m l − 2d H ((all ones tensor), Y ) (3.23)

and minimum over all X tensors ≠ (all ones tensor) of d H ((all ones tensor), Y)
occurs at M =Maximum overall tensors other than all ones tensor of EW (X ) (3.24)
Thus, d * ( the minimum distance of the code is given by )
ml – M
d* = (3.25)
2
The above results are being generalized to infinite dimensional codes utilizing infinite
dimension/order tensors .
Game-Theoretic Codes: Optimal Codes

In the theory of error correcting codes, minimum distance of a linear code provides a
measure of the number of errors that can be corrected. From ( 3.25), it is evident that the
maximization of minimum distance of a multidimensional linear block code requires
minimizing M. Thus, we have the following Lemma.
Lemma 3.4: The multidimensional (m, n ; m, l) linear block code which minimizes M in
(3.24) enables the correction of maximum number of errors among all possible such error
correcting codes:
Proof: From (3.25), maximization of minimum distance of an (m, n ; m , l) linear code is
equivalent to minimizing M, i.e. minimizing the maximum value of the energy function
over the m-d hypercube ( excluding the all ones tensor). Such a code design problem fits in
the game-theoretic framework. It is well known that maximization of minimum distance
also maximizes the number of errors that can be corrected. Q. E. D.
3.4 MULTIDIMENSIONAL ERROR CORRECTING CODES: RELATIONSHIP

TO STABLE STATES OF ENERGY FUNCTIONS
Let C be a linear multidimensional block code (over GF(2)) defined by the generator
tensor G. Let EC be a polynomial over the components of {+1, –1} tensors (energy function)
with the property that every local maximum in EC corresponds to a codeword in C and
every codeword in C corresponds to a local maximum in EC. An interesting problem is,
given a code C defined by G, the generator tensor, is there an efficient algorithm to

construct to EC ?
In the following, the above problem is solved by considering the parity check tensor of
a multidimensional linear block code.
Consider an (m, l ; m , n) linear multidimensional block code. Without loss of generality,
let us consider the generator tensor G given in the systematic form i.e.
Gj 1, j 2,..., jn = I j 1,..., jl Pjl + 1,..., jn (3.26)
where I j 1,..., jl is an identity tensor of compatible order.

The parity check tensor of C is denoted by H and is given by
P 
HT = H j ( n − 1),..., ,..., j 1 =  I  (3.27)
 
i.e. a blocked tensor with sub-tensors of compatible dimension and order. From the
definition of a parity check tensor of a multidimensional linear block code,
C j 1,..., jn ⊗ H j ( n −1),..., ,..., j 1 = 0 (3.28)
where the multidimensional tensor codeword on appropriate/compatible inner product
(outer product followed by contraction over the appropriate indices) with the parity check
tensor gives the zero tensor.
The above equation can be rewritten using the polynomial representation of generator
tensor devised in the previous section (with the tensor of coefficients being the all-ones
tensor. It should be noted that the all-ones tensor in the {1, –1} representation corresponds
to all-zero tensor in the {0,1} representation).
Lemma 3.5: Let E (X) be the polynomial representation of parity check tensor HT with respect
to the all ones tensor. Then, X ∈ C , the multidimensional linear block code if and only if
E (X) = m(n–l).
Proof: E , the polynomial representation of parity check tensor has m (n–l) terms, and all
the coefficients are equal to one. Hence, E = m(n–l). if and only if all the terms are equal to
one. Q. E. D.
The above Lemma ensures that in the polynomial representation, E (X), every codeword
corresponds to a global maximum (stable state). An interesting question is, does every local
maximum correspond to a codeword. This question is answered by the following theorem.
Theorem 3.5: Let C be a linear multidimensional block code, with G, H, EC, and E as
defined above. Then E is a polynomial with the properties of EC. That is, X corresponds to
∈C.
a local maximum in E if and only if X∈
Proof: From the above Lemma, the global maximum of E is m (n–l) ; thus every codeword is
a global ( and thus a local ) maximum. The converse follows from the fact that the tensor H
has a systematic form. Specifically, the last m (n–l) variables in E ; i.e., xi1,i 2 ,...., in – l +1 ,...., in ;
where the order indices iˆn −l +1 ,..., iˆn (each of them) assume m values, each appear only in
one term. That is, since I is an identity tensor in the parity tensor H; x i 1,..., iˆn – l +1 ,...., iˆn appears
only in first term, and so on. Now, assume that a tensor V exists that corresponds to a local
(n−l )
maximum (which is not global maximum). That is E (V) = L, where L < m . Hence, at
least one term exists in E (V ) that is not one. However, this can be made one by flipping
the value of the index variables that appear in this term. This contradicts the fact that V is
a local maximum. Q. E. D.
To summarize, given a linear code C, the algorithm for constructing a polynomial is as follows:
(1) Construct the systematic generator tensor of C by the standard techniques in
tensor algebra,
(2) Construct the systematic parity check tensor of C in accordance with (3.27)
(3) Construct E , which is the polynomial representation of H with respect to the all-
ones tensor. By the above Theorem 3.5, EC = E .
In the following, generalizations of the above results are discussed. Also, some important
comments, remarks are provided.
(A) The construction just described also works for cosets of linear multidimensional
block codes. Let W be a tensor of dimension m and order (n – l) of the coefficients
of E. In the construction described above, the all-ones coefficient tensor was
chosen and it was concluded that EC = E . It corresponds to the all-zero syndrome
tensor. Let C be a coset of C, and let T be the syndrome which corresponds to
C. Utilizing the proof argument of Theorem 3.5, it can be proven that a one-to-
one correspondence exists between the local maxima of polynomial representation
of the parity check tensor H with W = T and the tensors in the coset C. Clearly,
the syndrome that corresponds to the code C is the all-ones tensor (by noting that
in the transformation in section 3, 0 goes to 1).
(B) The construction described in this section is a dual way of defining the maximum
likelihood problem (MLD) (with respect to the one suggested in section (3)).
Consider a linear multidimensional block code defined by the parity check tensor
H. Given a tensor V, the maximum likelihood decoding (MLD) problem can be
defined as finding the local maximum in EC closest to V or, equivalently, finding
a local maximum of the energy function associated with the syndrome
(corresponding to V) that is achieved by a tensor of minimum weight.
The above results are generalized to some infinite dimension/order tensors in a
straightforward manner.
In the following section, the above results are generalized to non-binary codes.
3.5. NON-BINARY LINEAR CODES
In the following, results on maximum likelihood decoding of non-binary linear codes

are discussed.
Consider a linear multidimensional block code over a finite field GF(p) with p being a
prime. For the sake of notational convenience, we first consider an (m, k ; m, n) linear
multidimensional block code which maps a transmitted input tensor of dimension m, order
k into a codeword tensor of dimension m and order n. Let G denote the generator tensor of
the code which maps the ( m, k ) input tensor into a (m, n ) codeword tensor. Then, m k
symbols of the input tensor B in Zp are encoded into the codeword V by the procedure:
Vi 1, i 2,..., in = (Bi 1, i 2,..., ik ⊗ Gi 1,..., ik ; j 1,..., jn ) mod p (3.29)
The essential idea is once again to utilize the multiplicative representation. Let u be the p th
root of unity i.e. µ = e ( j 2 Π )/ p (3.30)
The additive Zp group can be represented as a multiplicative group of p th roots of
unity through the transformation: a → u a
In the multiplicative representation, the information symbols in information tensor
are represented as
X i 1,..., ik = u Bi 1,....,ik (3.31)
Thus, the encoded codeword tensor V, is represented by a new tensor Y, where
Vi1 ,..., in
Yi 1,..., in = u
(3.32)
m m
∑ .. . ∑ ( B i 1 ,. .. , ik G i 1 ,. .. , ik ; j 1 ,. .. , j n ) m o d p
= u i 1 = 1 ik = 1
m m
= ∏ ...∏ u
Bi1 ,..., ik Gi1 ,...,ik ; j1 ,..., jn
i1= 1 ik = 1
m m
= ∏ ...∏ Xi1,...,i 1,...,ik ik ; j 1,..., jn
G
i1= 1 ik = 1
Hence, as in the case of a binary linear multidimensional code, we can represent a

multidimensional code over a field (finite) with p elements (p is a prime) by an encoding
procedure. The elements are now p th roots of unity. Thus, given an information tensor
X = (Xi 1,..., ik ) , we have the one-to-one assignment
X = (Xi1,.....,i k) –→ Y = (Yi1,....in) (3.33)
where Y = (yi 1,..., in ), is a monomial.
We discuss the maximum likelihood decoding problem with respect to two different
distance measures. In the first generalization, we consider solving the maximum likelihood
decoding (MLD) problem with the metric being the Hamming distance between the tensors
while in the second case, we consider the Lee distance.
The generalization for the case where the Hamming distance is utilized in the maximum
likelihood decoding (MLD) problem is based on the following well known Lemma.
Lemma 3.6: Let p be a prime, and let ( j 2 π p ). Assume KE{0,1,2,...,(p − 1)}µ=e then
1, if k = 0,
( p −1)
(1 p ) = ∑u km
(3.34)
m =0 0, othe rw ise
The generalization is stated through the following theorem.
Theorem 3.6: Consider an (m, k ; m, n) multidimensional linear block code over GF(p), with
p
p being a prime. Let X → Y be the corresponding encoding procedure. Let EW be the
following multivariate polynomial representation of the generator tensor G with respect to
an arbitrary received tensor W :
( p −1)
∑ (W
p •
EW (Y ) = i 1,..., in ⊗ Yi 1,..., in ) (3.35)
l=0
where W• denotes the complex conjugate of W and ⊗ denotes the inner product between
the tensors. Then, the maximum likelihood decoding of W i1 ,......, i n is equivalent to finding
p
the maximum of EW (Y ) .
Proof: It follows by the same argument as Theorem (3.4) adopted to the variables appearing
p
in the polynomial EW (Y) and the application of above Lemma. Q.E.D.
The essence of the above theorem stated in more explicit language leads to the following
conclusion.
Given a received tensor Wi 1,..., in , the closest codeword tensor (in Hamming distance) to
W in C (the code utilized at the input to the multidimensional channel) corresponds to a
tensor B if and only if
( p −1)
Max
EW (B ) = All tensors EW (Y ) = ∑ (W i 1,..., in ⊗ Yi 1,..., in )
l
(3.36)
l =0
Next, we consider the maximum likelihood decoding problem with respect to the Lee
distance. We first consider the cases where p = 3 or 5. In these cases, there are easy
expressions for the energy function. It is convenient to redefine the energy function in the
following manner:
Given an encoding procedure for a transmitted tensor X = (Xi1,..., i k), into a codeword
tensor Y = (Yi1,..., in), by the following procedure i.e.
X = (Xi 1,..., ik ), → Y = (Yi 1,..., in ) (3.37)
and W = (W i1,..., in), a tensor whose entries are the pth roots of unity, we redefine the energy
function as follows:
i
EW ( X ) = Re(W i1 ,....,in ⊗Yi1 ,..., in )  (3.38)
where Re (x) denotes the real part of the complex number,  x  denotes the integral part of
the number x and xi denotes the complex conjugate of x.
It should be noted that the energy function coincides with the one for p = 2 (in the case
u = –1). The definition of Lee distance is provided to facilitate the easier understanding of
further discussion.
Definition 3.6
p
The Lee weight of an m-dimensional tensor of order k , X = (Xi 1,..., ik ), (Xi 1,..., ik ) ∈ Z , p is a
prime, is defined as
m m
WL = ∑ ...∑ Xi 1,..., ik (3.39)
i1=1 ik =1
where
 X i 1, i 2,..., ik , 0 < X i 1, i 2 ,..., ik ≤ ( p 2)
X i 1, i 2,..., ik = 
 p − X i 1, i 2 ,..., ik , ( p 2) < X 1i , i 2,..., ik < ( p − 1)
The Lee distance between any two compatible tensors is defined as the Lee weight, W L
of their difference.
With the above definition, we study the cases where p = 3, p = 5. From now, in the
following discussion, X → Y denotes the encoding procedure that defines a code
(multidimensional), and X , Y are tensors of dimension m and order k , n respectively, of
third or fifth roots of unity.
In the following, two new theorems are proved. The first one is equivalent to the
Theorem (3.4). It states that maximum likelihood decoding (MLD) in a ternary code is
equivalent to the maximization of the energy function in (3.39). The Theorem is formally
stated below:
Theorem 3.7: Let p = 3, A → B; then B is the closest multidimensional codeword (in the
Hamming distance) to a received tensor word W if and only if
EW ( A ) = Max EW (X ). (3.40)
X
Proof: The proof is similar to that of Theorem (3.4) and is avoided for brevity Q.E.D.
The proof of Theorem (3.7) as well as Theorem (3.8) requires the utilization of Lemma
(3.6) and a clear understanding of when the energy function is maximized. The new
energy function provided in (3.39) is a convenient expression. Its definition is once

again based on understanding when the energy function is maximized and how utilizing
Re ( ), the real part of a complex number does not alter the end effect in decoding a
received word.
Now, we consider the problem of maximum likelihood decoding (MLD) with respect
to the Lee distance:
Theorem 3.8: Let p = 5, A → B ; then B is the closest multidimensional codeword (in Lee
distance) to a received tensor word W if and only if
EW ( A ) = Max EW (X ). (3.41)
X
Proof: From the definition of the energy function in

{ i
EW (A ) = (i 1, i 2,..., in ) : W ( i 1,..., in ) ⊗ B i 1,..., in = 1 }
{ i
− (i 1, i 2,..., in ) : W( i 1,..., in ) ⊗ B i 1,..., in = u 2 or u 3 } (3.42)
i
{
= m n − (i 1, i 2,..., in ) : W ( i 1,..., in ) ⊗ B i 1,...., in = u or u 4 }
{
− 2 (i 1, i 2,..., in ) : W i ( i 2,..., in ) ⊗ Bi 1,..., in = u 2 or u 3 }
= mn − dL (W,B) (3.43)
Where W• denotes the complex conjugate of all components of W and d L denotes the
Lee distance. Hence, EW (A) reaches a maximum if and only if d L (W, B) reaches the minimum.
Q.E.D.
The above results are generalized to infinite dimension/order tensors in a
straightforward manner.
3.6 NON-LINEAR CODES
In the theory of error control codes in one dimension, linear block codes are first extensively
studied and various problems including the sphere packing problem was subjected to intense
theoretical investigations. The research and development led to various theoretical as well
as practical encoding/ decoding algorithms. Then, because it was thought that linear codes
are limited from the point of view of various code parameters such as the number of (Ara)
correctable errors/minimum distance, non-linear block codes were studied. The research in
this direction culminated in the discovery of codes from algebraic geometry based techniques.
The encoding algorithm was generally easy from the point of view of theory as well as
physical hardware. It is the decoding algorithm which was considered difficult and was the
subject of intense investigations resulting in several decoders. The maximum likelihood
decoding (MLD) problem of linear codes and the relationship to energy functions (discussed
in the previous sections) naturally suggests a search for similar techniques to non-linear
codes. In the following, non-linear multidimensional codes are investigated.
The essential idea in generalizing the results in previous section to non-linear
multidimensional codes is to consider the representation of Boolean functions as polynomials
over the field of real numbers. In the context of one dimensional non-linear codes, part of the
discussion is known (BrB) and is repeated here for the sake of completeness. Also, utilization
of some subtle ideas associated with tensor products make the presentation essential aid for
realizing that non-linear multidimensional codes share various features with linear codes.
Definition 3.7
A Boolean function f on n variables, is a mapping
f : {0,1}n → {0,1} (3.44)
For the present discussion, it is useful to define Boolean functions using the symbols 1
and –1 instead of the symbols 0 and 1, respectively.
Definition 3.8
A Hadamard matrix of order m, denoted by H , is an m × m matrix of +1’s and –1’s such that
Hm HmT = mI m , (3.45)
where Im is the m × m identity matrix. The above definition is equivalent to the assertion
that any two rows of H are orthogonal.
Hadamard matrices of order 2k exist for all k > 0. The construction is as follows:
H1 = [1]
1 1 
H2 = 1 – 1 
 
 H 2n H 2n 
H 2n +1 =  . (3.46)
 H 2n − H 2n 
Definition 3.9
Given a Boolean function f of order n, P is a polynomial (with the coefficients over the field
of real numbers) equivalent to f if and only if for all vectors X ∈ {1, – 1}
n
f (X ) = Pf (X ). (3.47)
An important problem that is relevant to the investigation of non-linear multidimensional
codes is the following:
Given a Boolean function f of order n, compute Pf , polynomial which is equivalent to f.
From the results in section 3, it is evident that the components of the codeword tensor
(of a linear code), in the {1, – 1} representation are Boolean functions (monomials) in the
components/elements of the information tensor through the mapping described in

Definition 3.4. Thus, the idea once again is to represent the corresponding Boolean functions
of non-linear codes as polynomials/monomials over the field of real numbers.
In the context of vector variable, the following inferences from Theorem (3.4) are
well known in switching theory textbooks. But, in the case of vector variables, in (BrB),
an alternative proof is given. In the following, it is shown that given the Boolean
functions which are the components of a codeword tensor, there exist polynomials
(with coefficients over the field of real numbers) equivalent to them over the
multidimensional hypercube.
Theorem 3.9: Let f be a Boolean function of order either strictly less than or equal to m n (in
the components of a tensor X of dimension m and order n). Let Pf be a polynomial equivalent
n
to f. Let B denote the tensor of coefficients of Pf . Let P denote the tensor of utmost 2 m
values of Pf (corresponding to m n{+1, – 1} components of tensor X ). Then,
(1) the polynomial Pf always exists and is unique,
(2) the following relationship is satisfied
P = G ⊗ B, where ⊗ denotes the inner product of tensors.
Proof: The proof is constructive in nature. The essential idea is to determine the
coefficients of the polynomial by solving a system of linear equations, possibly imbedded
in tensors.
First, let us consider a Boolean function f of one variable and let us determine the
coefficients of the polynomial Pf .
Pf (x) = b 0 +b 1 x (3.48)
Evaluating the polynomial on the domain of the Boolean function, we have
Pf (1) = b 0 + b 1 (3.49)
Pf (–1) = b 0 – b 1 (3.50)
 +1 + 1
Thus, P = G ⊗ B, where G =  +1 – 1  (3.51)
 
G is a Hadamard matrix and B as defined before is the vector of coefficients of
Pf (X1 , X2 ,..., Xn + 1 ) .
Remark
Before proceeding with the proof, the following comparison/discussion on the similarities
and differences between tensor products, matrix products is very relevant. Consider a G
matrix and a column vector B. The tensor product, when the variables (matrix, column
vector) are treated as tensors is given by
G ⊗ B = Gi , j Bk = Pijk 
CONTRACTION
→ Pi
G11 B1 G11 B2 G12 B1 G12 B2 (3.52)
G21 B1 G21 B2 G22 B1 G22 B2
Now, we perform contraction on certain indices of the tensors. The resulting tensor is
a first order tensor. Specifically, suppose we do the contraction over the indices j, k. Then,
we have
G11 B1 + G12 B2
(3.53)
G21 B1 + G22 B2
Thus, the tensor product, in contrast to the matrix product allows more freedom in
summing the components over different indices (contraction over different indices in the
language of tensor algebra) of the tensor.
Now, we return to the original proof.
The above argument is now generalized to less than or equal to m n variables ( or arbitrary
finite/countable number of variables which are possibly the components of a tensor ) by
the method of mathematical induction.
The case m = 1, n = 1 is proved at the beginning of the proof. Since m n is still a large
number (finite), say l, it is sufficient as well as necessary to prove the result for a finite
number l ( in the case considered, the binary variables are imbedded inside a tensor. Also,
the polynomial representing the Boolean function is expressed through inner product
operation over appropriate tensors ).
Now, as an induction hypothesis, assume that the claim is true for l
P = G2n B (3.54)
variables. Since, every polynomial of (l + 1) variables can be written as a combination of
two polynomials each of l variables, we have
Pf (X1 , X2 ,..., Xl + 1 ) = Pf 1 (X1 , X2 ,..., Xl ) + Xl + 1 Pf 2 (X1 , X2 ,..., Xl ) (3.55)
There are two possibilities, either Xl + 1 = + 1 or Xl + 1 = − 1. Hence, by the induction
hypothesis (3.55), the system of linear equations in (l + 1) variables, becomes
G2n G2n 
P = G – G  (3.56)
 2n 2n 
From the recursive definition of Hadamard matrices,

1 1 G2n G2n 
G 1 = [ 1 ] ; G 2 = 1 – 1 ; G2n +1 = G – G  (3.57)
   2n 2n 
we have P = G 2n + 1 B
Hadamard matrices are non-singular; thus, for any given f, a unique Pf exists (defined
by a vector of coefficients).
In the language of tensor algebra, the same argument holds true except that the tensor
can have ( the tensor utilized to couple the coefficients of the polynomial representing a
Boolean function to the values of the polynomial) ‘0’ (zero) entries in addition to +1, –1
entries ( when contraction is performed over the appropriate indices). Uniqueness of such
a polynomial is ensured by the uniqueness as a representation of Boolean function ( from
the discussion/proof above ). Thus, in the tensor algebra notation, we have
P = G ⊗B (3.58)
where ⊗ denotes the inner product of two tensors. Q. E. D.
It should be clear that the above representation theory has relevance to the minimum
sum of products representation of a Boolean function. The above theory, as is easily seen
holds true, if one is interested in finding the equivalent polynomial of a Boolean function
which assumes {0,1} values. One way to see the result is by the following claim.
CLAIM: Every monomial over {1, –1} can be written as a polynomial over {0,1} by the
change of variable (BrB), x = 1 - 2 u, as follows:
k k
∏ Xi = 1+ ∑ (−2)i
i =1 i =1
∑ ∏U
Si j ∈Si
j (3.59)
with Si , a subset of {1, 2, ..., k } with i elements. For example,

X1 X 2 = (1 − 2U1 ) (1 − 2U 2 ) = 1 − 2 (U1 + U 2 ) + 4U1U 2
The variables can be the components of a tensor X = (Xi 1,..., ik ),

The representation theory developed above is now utilized for representing the
multidimensional error correcting codes in a way that generalizes the representation
described in section 3.
Consider the linear multidimensional (m, k ; m, n) code C. The code can be represented
by viewing each component of the codeword tensor as a Boolean function of utmost m k
variables. A tensor V ∈ C , if and only if there exists an m-dimensional tensor of order k
( binary entries ) such that, with {1, – 1} tensor, X = (Xi 1,..., ik ),
Vi 1, i 2,..., in = fi 1, i 2,..., in (X ) . (3.60)

The Boolean functions associated with the components of a linear multidimensional
codeword tensor are determined by the generator tensor entries through which the code
is represented. For linear multidimensional codes, every component of the codeword
tensor fi 1,i 2,..., in (X ) correspond to an XOR operation of some variables of the information
tensor ( determined by the corresponding entries of the generator tensor ). Thus, for every
component (i1, i2,..., in), the Boolean function fi 1,i 2,..., in (X ) can be transformed by the method
described in Theorem (3.9) to an equivalent polynomial over {1, – 1}

mk
which consists of
one monomial only.
Now, by the same argument as in Theorem (3.4), the maximum likelihood decoding
(MLD) of a given received tensor word is equivalent to solving the following
maximization problem:
Max (Wi 1,..., in ⊗ fi 1,...., in (X )). (3.61)
By the procedure/reasoning through which we arrived at the above conclusion, tells us
that the MLD problem as defined above also holds ( (3.61) holds) for non-linear
multidimensional codes. For non-linear multidimensional codes, a component of the
codeword tensor fi 1,i 2,..., in (X ) can consist of more than one monomial. Other than that, each
component satisfies all the conditions to arrive at the above conclusion.
From the above generalization, it follows that, for both linear as well as non-linear
multidimensional codes, the maximum likelihood decoding problem is equivalent to the
maximization of a multi-variate polynomial defined over the components of {1, –1} tensor
i.e. over a tensor X with entries, of dimension m and order k .
Hence, the following interesting theorem follows:
Theorem 3.10: The following three problems are equivalent:

(1) Maximization of multivariate polynomials with rational coefficients over the
multidimensional hypercube,
(2) Maximum likelihood decoding (MLD) problem of an (m, k ; m, n) multidimensional
linear code,
(3) Maximum likelihood decoding (MLD) problem of a not necessarily linear (possibly
non-linear) multidimensional code, each of whose codewords are tensors of
dimension m and order k .
In view of the results in section 5 for non-binary codes which parallel those in section
3 for binary codes, maximum likelihood decoding of non-binary, nonlinear
multidimensional codes is again equivalent to maximization of multivariate (variables
being the components of a tensor) polynomial over a subset of multidimensional lattice.
Various results (theorems, concepts, designs etc.) on optimization of multi-variate
polynomials over various subsets of lattice were developed in various scientific fields
such as electrical engineering, mathematics, computer science, operations research
etc. These results are being translated to multidimensions and also the repercussions
which follow immediately from the tensor linear operator are being documented.
For instance, in one dimensional logic theory, various theorems including the
representation of a Boolean function in the minimum sum of products (MSOP) form
are well studied. In view of the results in (Rama 3), utilizing the fact that matrix
linear operator is a special case of tensor linear operator, various theorems on
multivariate polynomials ( imbedded in matrices ) are translated to the case where

the polynomials/monomials are imbedded inside tensors. In as much as the linear
space structure is utilized in deriving the results/theorems, the translation of the
results from one dimensional logic theory to multidimensions is done with the generic
principles described in (Rama 3), (Chapter 4).
The results in sections 3, 4, 5, 6 effectively demonstrated the relationship between
multidimensional codes, the energy functions optimized by multidimensional neural
networks over various subsets of the lattice, optimization of multivariate polynomials (the
terms/monomials of which are based on the generator, other tensors) over the various
subsets of the multidimensional lattice. Thus, these local optima of the multivariate
polynomials have the structure parallel to various linear transformation groups and basis
of a certain linear spaces.
Utilizing a natural leap of imagination, the author considers univariate as well as
multivariate polynomials, power series in tensor variables with tensor coefficients.
Specifically, an interesting problem that arises in structured Markov random fields is the
problem of determination of tensor zeroes of the following univariate tensor polynomial,
power series equations (Rama 6).
X 2 ⊗ A 2 + X ⊗ A1 + A0 = 0
m
∑X
j =1
j
⊗ Aj =0
∞ (3.62)
∑ X j ⊗ Aj = 0
j =1
where X, {A} are tensors of compatible dimension, order such that the inner/outer
product operations are well defined. The solution techniques developed in (Rama 11)
when the linear operators are matrices are extended to the tensor linear operator case
in (Rama 6). Also, various results that are well documented in the books such as (Gol)
for matrix polynomials based on the properties of matrix linear operator are extended
to tensor linear operator. Furthermore, in one dimensional system theory, various results
are developed for systems of matrix polynomial equations utilizing only linear operator
properties of a matrix. These results are extended to systems of tensor polynomial
equations (Rama 3). In (Rama 6), the author formulates as well as solves the problem
of determination of tensor variate zeroes of multi-tensor variate polynomial, power
series equations
L L
∑ ...∑ X
i1
1 ⊗ X i22 ... X mim ⊗ Ai 1,...., in = 0
i1= 0 m= 0
∞ ∞
(3.63)
∑ ...∑ X
i1
1 ⊗ X i22 ⊗ ... X mim ⊗ Ai 1,...., in = 0

i1= 0 m= 0
Various other associated results are documented in (Rama 6). It is well known that the
zeroes of a uni-variate scalar polynomial constitute a group. By utilizing the set of zeroes
of a determinental polynomial associated with the uni-variate/multi-variate (tensor
variables) polynomial, the set of tensor zeroes are divided into certain set of equivalence
classes. Thus, a group structure is imbedded onto the linear subspace of tensor zeroes of
uni-variate/multi-variate polynomial equations.
Unlike the multivariate polynomials (whose terms/monomials are based on the
components of tensors) optimized in sections 3, 4, 5, 6; in view of the above results, a
natural question that arises is whether the local optimum of multi-tensor variate polynomials
over various subsets of multidimensional (very high dimensional) lattice lead to (each
variable is a tensor) codeword sets with better properties. When the information tensor,
generator tensor, codeword tensors are blocked into sub-tensors and the objective function
for the optimization problem over a subset of multidimensional lattice is rewritten, it is
evident that a multi-tensor variate polynomial appears. Thus, such polynomials are
subsumed in the ones considered in sections 3, 4, 5, 6.
Integer Programming Problems: Solutions Using Decoding Techniques

In computer science, operations research and other fields, problems of the following
form arise very often:
 n 
Maximize  ∑ Wi ∏X j  (3.64)
 i =1 j ∈Si 
where Sj is a subset of {1,2,...,n} and X j ∈{0,1} . Thus, the problem is concerned with optimizing
a multivariate polynomial, whose variables assume integer values. By the discussion, in this
section, every polynomial over {1, –1} can be transformed to an equivalent one over {0,1} by
a change of variable. It is shown in section 2, that a special case of the above problem i.e.
maximization of a quadratic form in {1, –1} variables arises in connection with the
determination of global optimum stable state of a neural network and is equivalent to the
minimum cut problem. This problem is known to be an NP hard problem.
The problem in (3.64) was studied extensively by various researchers and the main effort
concentrated in identifying the special cases which are solvable in polynomial time and in
devising approximation techniques. The most common technique for solving the
unconstrained {0, 1} program of the form in (3.64) is by transforming them to the problem of
finding the maximum weight independent set in a graph, which is an NP-hard problem. The
problem in (3.64) is transformed to the problem of finding the maximum weight independent
set by using the concept of a conflict graph of a 0-1 polynomial. In (BrB), it is shown how
decoding techniques can be utilized to maximize 0-1 nonlinear programs.
The multidimensional version of the 0-1 nonlinear programming problem in (3.64) is
given by
 n 
Maximize  ∑ Wi ⊗ X ii  (3.65)
 i =1 
where W, X are tensors containing the known coefficients w ‘s in W and the monomials in
the variable components of the unknown tensor X. The inner product between these two
tensors provides the scalar objective function whose variables are allowed to assume only
{0, 1} or more generally finitely many values. It is shown in (Rama 6) that such an integer
programming problem can be solved utilizing the multidimensional decoding techniques
for linear block multidimensional codes. These results in operations research are avoided
here and relegated to (Rama 6).
3.7 CONSTRAINED STATIC OPTIMIZATION
In one/two independent dimensions, various static optimization problems are solved under
the sub-fields of optimization theory such as (a) linear programming, (b) non-linear
programming, (c) calculus of variations, (d) combinatorial optimization etc. With the
innovative idea of formulating and solving the parallel problems in multidimensions (Rama
3) through the utilization of tensor linear operator (motivated by practical applications),
vast literature in multidimensional optimization theory is generated. Various consequences of
this innovative idea of the author are fully explained in the companion research article
(Rama 3) on dynamic optimization. In the following, some innovative ideas of generic
consequence in static optimization are described.
In view of the results in section 5, the constraint set over which a multivariate
polynomial (terms of the polynomial expressed in terms of the components of a generator
tensor, received tensor in the case of MLD) is optimized is a subset of the multidimensional
lattice (or bounded lattice, say, in multidimensions) and subsumes the multidimensional
hypercube as its subset. These results naturally lead to a question as to whether it is
possible to utilize the results in sections 3, 4, 5, 6 for optimizing multivariate polynomials
over more general constraint sets in multidimensions. In the following theorems, constrained
optimization over more general constraint sets utilizing the results of sections 3, 4, 5, 6 is
discussed.
Theorem 3.11: Consider a compact set in a multidimensional metric space. The local
optimum of a multivariate polynomial (with the terms/monomials expressed in terms of
the components of tensors and assuming binary/finitely many integer values) whose
variables are allowed to assume finitely many values, over the compact set, occurs at the
union of codewords of finitely many multidimensional non-binary/binary codes.
Proof: From real/complex analysis (also topology), we have the Heine-Borel Theorem,
which states that every open covering of the compact set ( in the space described by multiple
independent variables ) has a finite sub-covering. The covering generally consists of open
balls ( hyperspheres in multidimensional space) in every metric space ( although other

sets could be utilized for covering ). But, it can be chosen to be a collection of convex hulls
of bounded lattices in multidimensions. This (possibly countable) collection covers the
compact set and thus has a finite sub covering. This implies that the constraint set chosen
for optimization can be covered by finitely many bounded lattices (convex hulls of bounded
lattices in multiple independent dimensions ).
But, by the results of sections 3, 4, 5, 6 the local optimum of multivariate polynomials
(terms/monomials expressed in terms of the components of tensors) over multidimensional
bounded lattice (subsets of multidimensional lattice) constitute a linear/non-linear
multidimensional codewords. Hence, the local optimum is achieved at the set of codewords
of finitely many linear/non-linear codewords (tensors). Q. E. D.
It should be noted that the determination of global/local optimum of the multivariate
polynomial over the compact set is reduced to determining the global/local optimum of
the energy functions of finitely many neural/generalized neural networks. It should be
understood that some codewords may not be in the feasible region i.e. strictly inside the
compact set. Also, when specific compact sets are chosen, further detailed information can
be obtained on the local optima.
Theorem 3.12: Optimization of a multivariate polynomial (with the terms/monomials
expressed in terms of the components of tensors) over an arbitrary open set in a
multidimensional space (metric space) is equivalent to the optimization over the union
of codewords of countably many multidimensional linear codes or an infinite
dimensional code.
Proof: Let us consider an arbitrary open set in a multidimensional space (metric space). By
the Lindeloff’s covering lemma, the open set can always be covered by utmost a countable
collection of open balls or other sets. It is evident that the covering can be chosen to be a
countable collection of convex hulls of bounded lattices (in multidimensional space). But,
by the results in section 4, the local optima of the multivariate polynomial (the monomials/
terms being expressed in terms of the components of tensors) over a bounded lattice
constitute multidimensional codeword set. Thus, the local optima of a multivariate
polynomial occurs at the union of codewords of countably many multidimensional codes.
Q. E. D.
Remark
Suppose, the compact set/open set (in multidimensions) is covered by finitely/countably
many hyperspheres (multidimensional) and a quadratic/higher degree form is optimized.
By the spectral representation theorem, the local optima of quadratic/higher degree form
occur at the eigentensors with the eigenvalues being the corresponding values. This
corresponds to L 2 norm based optimization.
The above theorems illustrate two essential ideas of generic utility in static
optimization: (a) optimization over more general constraint sets, (b) decomposition principle.
In the following, the decomposition principle is explained as it is of generic utility in

static optimization.
Decomposition Principle
Consider an arbitrary constraint set over which an objective function is optimized in
one or more independent dimension variables. The constraint set is decomposed into the
union of finitely many special sets with interesting structure. Optimization of various
objective functions over the special sets has various interesting features: (a) various results
are well known, (b) the local optima have interesting structure, (c) it is thoroughly studied
etc. Utilizing these features, optimization of any objective function over the original set is
decomposed into simpler problems. The above two theorems are only illustrative.
The discovery and application of the above decomposition principle to
multidimensional constrained optimization problems naturally led the author to investigate
various other innovative ideas in static optimization.
(I) Approximation of Objective Function by Polynomials, Power Series ( other Special
Classes of Functions)
Polynomials and power series (uni/multi-variate) are very important classes of functions.
The optimization results (unconstrained as well as constrained) associated with these functions
enable one to derive the local optimum of some classes of functions over various constraint
sets invoking standard theorems (from approximation theory). For instance, the following
theorem enables deriving results on continuous objective functions utilizing polynomials:
Theorem 3.6 is utilized in association with the following theorem.
Theorem 3.13: Every continuous function over a compact set always attains its maximum/
minimum over the set. Every continuous function can be arbitrarily closely approximated
by polynomials ( multi-variate/univariate).
Also, invoking the standard theorems from approximation theory, various classes of
functions are arbitrarily closely approximated by polynomials: uni-variate/multi-variate.
Thus, when these functions are utilized as objective functions, results associated with
polynomials (derived in sections 3-6 ) are invoked.
(II) Discovery of new local/global optimization techniques
This requires utilizing either new classes of functions or new constraint sets. The
constraint set structure renders the local optima of some functions with interesting structure
and also the properties satisfied by the objective functions enables discovering efficient
techniques.
NP-Hard Problems:
In computer science, operations research and other applied/theoretical research fields,
various NP-hard problems are well identified and studied. It is well known that one NP-
hard problem is as complex ( in the terminology of complexity theory in theoretical computer
science) as any other NP-hard problem. Finding algorithms which are efficient (in terms of
complexity) for an NP-hard problem is well recognized as a difficult problem. The following
is a difficult open problem in theoretical computer science:
Problem: Does a polynomial time algorithm exist for an NP-hard problem? In other words,
is the class of problems in NP, the same as the class of problems in P? i.e. is P = NP?
In the following, an innovative algorithm/approach to solve various NP-hard problems
in one dimension is described. The multidimensional generalization of this algorithm/
approach to any NP-hard problem (in multidimensions) is being formalized. It is an
extension of the following results to multidimensions.
In section 2, the problem of computation of minimum cut in a graph is shown to be
equivalent to the problem of determining the global optimum of the energy function of a
neural network i.e. maximizing a quadratic form over the hypercube. It is well known that
this is an NP-hard problem. In the following, an attack on this problem is described.
Positive Definite Synaptic Weight Matrix: Determination of Global Optimum Stable State of a
Neural Network:
Consider a neural network whose synaptic weight matrix is symmetric as well as
positive definite. In the following, an algorithm to determine the global optimum stable
state of such a neural network is described.
(a) Utilizing the well known theorem in linear algebra, every positive definite
symmetric matrix, S can be decomposed into the following form by means of
Cholesky Decomposition.
S = N NT (3.66)
where N is a lower triangular matrix.
(b) The quadratic form being optimized by the neural network over the hypercube
can be expressed into the following form:
X T S X = XT N N TX = YT Y , where Y = N TX . (3.67)
Since S is positive definite, XT S X > 0. Thus, YT Y > 0. The scalar expression for the quadratic form
n
in terms of Y is given by ∑Y
j =1
2
j
. Thus, it is evident that the value of the quadratic form is either
maximized/minimized when the value of each term i.e. Yj = ∑ N kj X k is either maximized or

k
minimized. But, since, N in the Cholesky decomposition is a lower/upper triangular matrix,

each of the terms is a linear form. Thus, to maximize the quadratic form, each linear form
maximum/minimum value (whichever is larger) is determined over the constraint set, hypercube.
Thus, the original NP-hard problem (of maximization of a quadratic form over the
hypercube) is reduced to several linear programming problems i.e. optimization of several
linear forms over the hypercube.
In this novel algorithm/approach for various classes of NP-hard problems (minimum
cut computation in an undirected graph, knapsack problem etc.), the complexity of the
algorithm is determined by
(a) Complexity of determination of Cholesky decomposition of a positive definite
symmetric matrix. Since there are various polynomial time procedures for the spectral
decomposition, computationally well studied efficient algorithms are available,
(b) Solving the linear programming problems related to optimization of linear forms
( maximization or minimization whichever leads to a larger value for the term)
over the hypercube. It is well known that there are polynomial time algorithms
for linear programming problems.
In some problems that arise in operations research, communication theory etc.,
constraint set is a convex polygon/polytope (convex hull of various finite structures
leading to convex sets bounded by hyperplanes) etc. and a quadratic/higher degree
form is optimized over the constraint set. Then, by means of Spectral/Cholesky type
decomposition of the positive definite symmetric linear operator (in one as well as
multidimensions), various linear programming problems are solved through efficient
polynomial time procedures. The computation of complexity of such procedures,
efficient algorithms for NP-hard problems in one and multi-dimension, are being
documented. When the connection matrix has other special structure efficient
algorithms are found.
Linear Programming Problems: Decomposition Principle

In the general framework of a linear programming problem, the constraint set is a
convex polytope. By means of the decomposition principle, utilizing the hyperplanes
bounding the feasible set, the convex polytope is expressed as the union of finitely
many rotated, translated hypercubes. The linear objective function is converted into a
quadratic objective function (reversing the technique utilized in the above algorithm)
and the results from neural network theory are invoked to determine the local optima
of the objective function (union of stable states of various neural networks). Thus, unlike
the simplex algorithm, only a subset of the vertices of the feasible region that constitute
the stable states of neural networks is searched for determining the global optimum
for the linear program.
In the following, an alternative algorithm for any NP-hard problem is formally described.
Hop-Skip Algorithm: Maximum Likelihood Decoding – NP-hard Problems

This algorithm is designed/analyzed by the author for maximum likelihood decoding
of linear block codes (Rama 1). From (BrB), and Theorem (3.3), maximum likelihood
decoding of a received word , Y with respect to a graph-theoretic code is equivalent to
finding the maximum of the energy function E of a neural network defined by the graph
G (the weights on the edges of G are given by W = (–1) yi with all its threshold values
equal to zero.
But, it is well known that the local optimum of a quadratic form over the hypersphere
occurs at the eigenvectors (eigentensors of the symmetric second order tensor) of the
symmetric matrix (associated with the symmetric matrix) with the value of the quadratic
form being the eigenvalue. Thus, maximum eigenvector of the symmetric matrix maximizes
the quadratic form over the hypersphere. Thus, the sign structure (sign of the components
of the vector) of the maximum eigenvector is utilized as the initial condition to run a neural
network i.e. Mathematically, let X 0 be the vector given by
X 0 = Sign ( X max ), where X max is the normalized maximum eigenvector and
X 0 is the initial state in which the neural network starts. A is the symmetric matrix.
The analysis of hop-and-skip algorithm is provided below.
X T A X = (X – X0 + X0)T A(X – X0 + X0) (3.68)
= (X – X0)T A( X – Xmax) + X0 A X0 + 2 XT0 A( X – X0 )
= λmax + (X – X0)T A(X – X0) + 2 X0T A( X – X0)
= λmax + (X – X0)T A(X – X0) + 2 λmax X0T(X – X0)
–λmax + (X – X0) T A(X – X0) + 2 λmax X0T X
= n (3.69)
The above manipulations enable one to compare the value of the quadratic form on the
hypercube at any discrete time instant against the maximum value on the unit hypersphere.
The particular choice of initial condition, minimizes the Hamming distance between the
maximum eigenvector and the initial condition vector to run the neural network.
The set of eigenvectors of the connection matrix of neural network span the entire
space or a subspace of it. Similarly, the set of stable states/ stable vectors span the space
or a sub-space. To determine the maximum stable state, the essential idea of the above
approach is to find the vector closest to the maximum stable state and utilize it as the
initial condition to run the neural network. Detailed analysis of the algorithm is being
investigated.
Dynamic Optimization
In (Rama 3), certain multidimensional system, in discrete/ continuous time is described
by the following state space representation through tensors:
Discrete Time:
X(n + 1) = A(n) ⊗ X(n) + B(n) ⊗ U(n),
(3.70)
Y(n) = C(n) ⊗ X(n) + D(n) ⊗ U( n).
Continuous Time:
X(t + 1) = A(t) ⊗ X(t) + B(t) ⊗ U(t),
(3.71)
Y(t) = C(t) ⊗ X( t) + D(t) ⊗ U(t).
where ⊗ denotes the inner product between compatible tensors in the system description
in continuous/discrete time. Utilizing this state space representation, the author formalized
a unified theory of control, communication and computation in multi/infinite dimensional
systems, first discovered in (Rama1) for one dimensional systems. This theory enabled the
author to develop a highly advanced version of the theory of evolution of life from organic
matter. In this theory the author reasons that various body organs, functions of living
systems have evolved over time and that bilogical systems are organic/inorganic matter
based dynamical systems.
3.8 CONCLUSIONS
Tensor linear spaces over finite fields are utilized to describe and study the structure/
properties of multi/infinite dimensional linear codes. The three concepts: multidimensional
neural/generalized neural networks, multidimensional codes, multivariate polynomial
(terms/monomials being expressed in terms of the components of generator, other tensors)
optimization over various subsets of lattice, are related.
It is shown that (a) the problem of maximum likelihood decoding of error correcting
codes (multidimensional), (b) finding the global maximum of the energy function of neural/
generalized neural networks, and (c) solving integer/non-linear programming problems
in multidimensions are related. The equivalence is proved for binary as well as non-binary
cases. This equivalence naturally suggests utilizing the solvable cases of one problem to
the equivalent problem and vice versa. Full capitalization of equivalence leads to various
new results (Rama 6).
The programming problem of multidimensional neural networks is solved. Several
new heuristic procedures for NP-hard problems in multidimensions are suggested from
the equivalence. The decoding techniques of various (multidimensional extensions of one
dimensional codes) codes are utilized to find approximate solutions of NP-hard problems.
Various innovative results in static optimization are described. Infinite dimensional
generalization of the results is briefly described.
REFERENCES
(Ara) B. Arazi, “Common Sense Approach to the Theory of Error Correcting Codes, “ MIT Press
book.
(BoT) A.I. Borisenko and I.E. Tarapov, “Vector and Tensor Analysis with Applications, “ Dover
Publications Inc., New York, 1968.
(BrB) J. Bruck and M. Blaum, “Neural Networks, Error Correcting Codes and Polynomials
Over the Binary Hypercube, “ IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 35, No. 5,
September 1989.
(Gaal) Gaal, “ Group Theory, “ Academic Press, 1982,
(Gol) I. Goldberg, “Matrix Polynomials, “ Academic Press, 1972.
Computation—Part-1, “ Manuscript to be submitted to the IEEE Proceedings.
(Rama 2) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Neural Networks, Multi/Infinite
Dimensional Logic Theory, Logic Synthesis, “ Published in International Journal of Neural
Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp 223-235, 2005.
(Rama 3) G. Rama Murthy, “Optimal Control, Codeword, Logic Function Tensors:
Multidimensional Neural Networks,” International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and
Informatics, October 2006, pages 9-17. See also Chapter 4.
(Rama 4) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Logic Synthesis, “ Manuscript
to be submitted to the IEEE Transactions on Computers.
(Rama 5) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Signal Design for Magnetic and Optical Recording Channels,
“ Bellcore Technical Memorandum, TM-NWT-018026.
(Rama 6) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Tensor Variate Polynomials/Power Series, Tensor based
Functions, Tensor Algebraic Geometry: Optimization, “ Manuscript to be submitted to the
Transactions of American Mathematical Society.
Computation: Dynamical Systems, “ Manuscript in Preparation.
(Rama 11) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Transient and Equilibrium Analysis of Computer Networks:
Finite Memory and Matrix Geometric Recursions, “ Ph. D. Thesis, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana.
(Rama 12) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Origin of Universe: Living/Non-Living: Grand-unification
Theory of Universe, “ Manuscript in preparation.
Tensor State Space Representation: Multidimensional Systems 61
CHAPTER
4
Tensor State Space
Representation:
Multidimensional Systems
4.1 INTRODUCTION
With the efforts of researchers in electrical engineering, linear system theory started with
abstract models of arbitrary linear systems through forced/unforced nth order difference
equations in discrete time and differential equations in continuous time. Such representations
are called the input-output representations of the linear system. These arbitrary system (electrical,
mechanical, chemical, hybrid systems) evolution equations were then converted into first
order differential/difference equations in state, control, input, output vectors through state,
input, output coupling matrices. Such a representation is called the state space representation.
The state space equations take the following form (Gop)
Discrete Time Systems:
X(n + 1) = A( n) X(n) + B(n) U(n),
Y(n) = C(n) X(n) + D(n) U(n),
Continous Time Systems :

X(t) = A(t ) X( t) + B( t) U( t)
(4.1)
Y(t ) = C(t ) X (t ) + D(t ) U (t )
where {A(n), B(n), C(n), D(n)} as well as {A(t), B(t), C(t), D(t)} are matrices of compatible
dimensions.
Thus, in the design, analysis and synthesis of linear systems, linear algebra techniques
were extensively utilized. Various, input-output representation related concepts such as
impulse response, systems function were shown to be derivable from the state space
description. Also new concepts such as controllability and observability are studied in
terms of state space representation. Thus, the state space representation of linear systems
proved to be a far better description of arbitrary systems.
Motivated by various practical applications, multidimensional systems were then

studied. Various system theorists tried to extend one dimensional system theory to
multidimensions utilizing the ideas of local state and local control. For instance, consider
a typical discrete time, two dimensional system. The evolution of a prototype linear model
is described by the state updating equation
X(h + 1, k + 1) = A1X(h, k + 1) + A2 X(h + 1, k) + B1U(h, k + 1) + B2U(h + 1, k)
where
X( h, k )∈Rn and U( h, k )∈Rm are the local state and local input value at (h,k)
and
A1,A 2 , B1 ,B 2 are real matrices of suitable dimensions. This type of approach based
on local state and local control was utilized in association with partial differential equation
based continuous time linear multidimensional systems. These representations of continuous
time as well as discrete time multidimensional systems required considerable amount of
ingenuity, careful tracking of the indices, in designing and analyzing such systems. To a
certain degree, this notation impeded further progress in multidimensional system theory.
With this type of approach/notation, modeling, design and analysis of certain linear/non-
linear, multi/infinite dimensional systems was a complicated task.
The author for the first time realized that, for the evolution of CERTAIN
multidimensional linear systems, tensor linear operator based state space description is
necessary as well as helpful. This mathematically formal tensor state space representation
was an important contribution for further progress in multi/infinitedimensional system
theory (linear/non-linear dynamical systems). Also, the author after carefully observing
various multi/infinite dimensional systems (explicitly stated as a static or dynamical system
or when a proper abstraction is made the multidimensional nature of problem/
phenomenon becomes apparent) such as those that arise in multi/infinite dimensional
neural networks (Rama 2), databases ( utilizing multiple attribute tree etc. ), multi/infinite
dimensional coding theory (Rama 3), proposed the utilization of tensors ( of order,
dimension finite/infinite ) as the linear operators in the design, analysis and synthesis of
such systems. This idea is already utilized in some applications. It should be noted that in
the analysis of some systems defined over finite fields and other discrete structures,
utilization of tensors considerably simplifies the analysis.
In the case of multidimensional systems, there is no natural notion of causality. Various
types of causality ( quarter-plane causality, half-plane causality) are artificially imposed
by different choices of neighbourhood sets. With such an approach (for all multidimensional
systems), it is very difficult to study controllability, observability and stability. The author
realized that for certain multidimensional systems, utilization of tensor linear operators
to represent the state, control, input, output variables, is very convenient (from the point
of view of design and analysis of such systems) (Rama 1).
This chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, the conventional approaches to two/

multidimensional system theory are summarized. It is also described how the utilization
of tensor linear operator associated with multidimensional linear spaces provides a new
approach for formulating as well as solving the problems related to static as well as
dynamical systems (defined over multidimensional linear space). In section 3, state space
representation of certain multi/infinite dimensional linear systems utilizing the tensor
linear operator is formally described. In section 4, it is illustrated how the utilization of
tensor based state space representation enables one to translate the results from one
dimensional systems to certain multidimensional systems. Various generic principles of
how to translate the results from one dimensional system theory to multi/infinite
dimensional system theory are provided. In section 5, multi/infinite dimensional time
series analysis models are described. In section 6, utilizing the concepts of local state, local
input, local control in the multi/infinite dimensional state space, various state space
representations for multi/infinite dimensional distributed systems are formally described.
These state space representations enable one to translate the results developed for
conventional multi/infinite dimensional systems to those described through the tensor
state space representation. The chapter concludes with some conclusions.
4.2 STATE OF THE ART IN MULTI/INFINITE DIMENSIONAL STATIC/DYNAMIC

SYSTEM THEORY: REPRESENTATION BY TENSOR LINEAR OPERATOR
One of the main tools in the design and analysis of one dimensional linear dynamic systems
as well as static systems is linear algebra. Motivated by practical applications in image
processing and other fields, system theorists proposed various input-output models for
two/multidimensional systems. Models which exhibit quarter plane causality have been
initially investigated from the input-output point of view (BiF) in the framework of two
dimensional filter theory, where two dimensional filters are represented by proper rational
functions in two indeterminates of the following type:
∑nZ
i + j ≥1
ij 1
i
Z2 j
W (Z1 , Z2 ) =
1+ ∑dZ
i + j≥1
ij 1
i
Z2 j (4.2)
The idea of associating two dimensional state space models with two dimensional filters
was originated very naturally. However, since the beginning it appeared that the canonical
technique based on the Nerode equivalence leads to an infinite dimensional state space.
The reason was to utilize a matrix as the linear operator to describe the state dynamics. So,
following some heuristic procedures, several finite dimensional models have been (BiF)
introduced, where two notions of state play different roles:
1. local states: X(h,k) belong to a finite dimensional vector space. They enter in the
state updating equation and determine the value of the output.
2. global states Xn = {X (i + h , – i ) , i ∈ z} provide the initial conditions on a separation

set of Z × Z. These belong to an infinite dimensional vector space (in one
independent dimension), which provides an extension of the space of Nerode
equivalence classes. The most common state space model with quarter plane
causality is represented by the following equation.
X(h + 1, k + 1) = A 1X (h, k +1) + A2 X(h + 1, k ) + B1 u (h, k + 1) + B2 u (h + 1, k )
Y(h , k ) = CX(h , k ) (4.3)

where x(h , k )∈ R n , u( h, k )∈R m , y(h , k )∈R p , are the values of the local state, the input and
the output at (h, k)∈Z × Z . Since the local state at (h+1, k +1) is computed by solving a first
order difference equation, the system (4.3) denoted by Σ 1 = (A 1, A 2, B1, B2, C) is named a first
order system.
The above model has been extensively studied in its general form and under some
conditions/constraints on the system matrices. The most popular particularized version
of (4.3) is Roesser’s model, where the local state space X is assumed as the direct sum of
two vector spaces Xh and Xv , and the matrices of the model are constrained to have the
following form (partitioned)
 A111 A121   0 0  B11   0 
A1 =   , A2 =  2 2  , B1 =   , B2 =  2  (4.4)
 0 0   A21 A22  0   B2 
Second order models are less frequently used: the typical structure of their equation is
given by
X ( h + 1, k + 1) = A1X ( h , k + 1) + A2 X ( h + 1, k ) + A0 X ( h , k ) + BU ( h , k )
Y (h , k ) = C X(h , k ) (4.5)
In Attasi’s model A 1 and A 2 are commutative matrices. Also, A 1A 2= –A 0. It realizes
separable filters only and constitutes an interesting second order model, as the underlying
theory is very close to the one dimensional theory (BiF).
Recently, the behavior approach has been extended to two dimensional systems. Following
this theory, a two dimensional system is defined by a family of β admissible functions
(behavior), defined over the discrete plane. These functions are characterized by the property
of belonging to the Kernel of a polynomial matrix M (Z1, Z2) in two variables
β = {ω = ∑ wij z1i z2j M ω = 0}
i , j∈Z
(4.6)
Associated with the external description provided by the behavior different internal
representations can be given by introducing the so called latent variable models. State variable
models constitute a particular type of latent variables, that hold the memory of the system
with respect to the notion of past introduced on Z × Z. When a state description is possible,
i.e. when the notion of past, present and future are allowed by the structure of β , the behavior
is called Markovian. Since there is not any natural direction for the evolution in Z × Z , the
Markovian property appears more general than the familiar quarter plane causality and has
been exploited in the analysis of non-causal two dimensional dynamics.
Also, various static systems that involve simple linear transformations in the
multidimensional space were previously abstracted utilizing the matrix linear operator.
Such systems arise in practical applications such as databases (modeling storage of multiple
attribute trees), computerized topography etc. The techniques developed for design and
analysis of such systems were thus very elementary.
The above efforts in two/multidimensional system theory were primarily utilizing the
matrix linear operator on an n-dimensional ( in one independent variable) vector space. System
theorists did not realize that utilization of tensor linear operator (in multidimensions) could
lead to design and analysis of a large class of multidimensional systems.
In the following areas, utilization of tensor linear operator to describe the multi/infinite
dimensional state space enables one to formulate new problems , introduce new concepts,
derive new results/theorems. Some of the areas of interest where such an idea could be
utilized are
(1) Multi/Infinite dimensional computation theory,
(2) Multi/Infinite dimensional information/communication/coding theory,
(3) Multi/Infinite dimensional rate distortion theory,
(4) Multi/Infinite dimensional stochastic systems—Theory of Markov random fields,
(5) Multi/Infinite dimensional time series analysis,
(6) Multi/Infinite dimensional digital signal processing,
(7) Theory of Multi/Infinite dimensional connectionist structures—graphoids,
(8) Theory of databases utilizing multidimensional storage,
(9) Matroid theory,
(10) Multi/Infinite dimensional Game theory.
By the utilization of the idea of capturing a multidimensional state space through a
tensor linear operator, new research problems can be formulated and solved.
4.3 STATE SPACE REPRESENTATION OF CERTAIN MULTI/INFINITE

DIMENSIONAL DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS: TENSOR LINEAR OPERATOR
A multidimensional system transforms an m -dimensional tensor (array) of order r into a k -
dimensional tensor of order s. In the following, some confusion that arises in the terms
utilized is cleared.
Remark: Notation
In the tensor notation, the word “dimension of a tensor” stands for the number of
values each independent variable assumes, whereas the word, “order” represents the
number of independent variables. In that sense, usage of the term “multidimensional”

system seems incorrect compared to “multi-order” system. But, this is a matter of notation.
To stick with familiar jargon, in the following the author utilizes the term “multidimensional
systems”. From the context, the reader should be able to ascertain the usage of words,
“order”, “dimension”.
Infinite dimensional systems lead to further confusion. If each independent variable
assumes infinitely many values ( in contrast to finitely many values assumed by each
independent variable in a multidimensional system ) and there are only finitely many
independent variables, the system description utilizes infinite dimensional tensors of finite
order for state, input, output variables. But, if the number of independent variables is also
infinite, the dimension as well as order of tensors utilized in the representation of variables
is infinite.
It should be noted that, in the case of discrete time systems, each component of the
tensor input, output, state variables is a function of a discrete time index. But, in the case of
continuous time systems, each component of the tensor input, output, state variables is a
function of the continuous time index. Also, in the case of time varying systems, the
transformation is a function of the index (discrete or continuous), whereas in the case of
time-invariant systems, the transformation is independent of the index.
Definition
A dynamical system is linear if and only if, given any two points (scalar, vector, tensor
variables) in the input space, say U1 and U2, and given any two scalar ( real or complex )
constants, the following property is satisfied by the transformation L, describing the
dynamical system:
L (C 1U 1 + C 2U 2 ) = C 1L (U 1 ) = C 1L (U 1 ) + C 2L (U 2 ); C 1 , C 2 ∈C or R or any field (4.7)
If the above property is violated by the dynamical system, we call it a non-linear system.
Conventionally, in multidimensional ( multi-order may be more appropriate, but is not
utilized by the author ) system theory, in the case of discrete time dynamical system (an
example is provided in section 2), the evolution is described by means of local state, local
control, local input and local output variables. This is very cumbersome. In the case of
certain multidimensional systems, the state space representation by means of tensors
(described below) enables one to compactly capture a higher order difference equation
through TENSOR notation.
In order to describe the tensor state space representation, the following concepts/ideas
from tensor analysis are explained.
Concepts from Tensor Analysis

Tensor Function of a Scalar Argument
It is a rule assigning a unique value of a tensor to each admissible value of a scalar t
(BoT). The variable t can be a discrete index assuming countably many values or a
continuous index assuming uncountably many values. To indicate such a function, we

write
Ai 1,i 2 ,...,in = Ai 1, i 2 ,..., in ( t ) (4.8)
For instance, the state of stress of an elastic medium varies in time. Then, the stress
tensor becomes a function of time i.e.
Pik = Pik (t) (4.9)
By the derivative of the function (4.8) with respect to time/index, we mean the tensor
with the components,
d Ai 1, i 2,..., in (t) Lt Ai 1, i 2,..., in (t + ∆t ) − Ai 1,..., in (t )
= (4.10)
dt ∆t → 0 ∆t
calculated in a coordinate system which does not vary in time. The derivative is clearly of
the same order as the tensor itself.
With the above notation from tensor analysis, certain multi/infinite dimensional discrete
time/index dynamical system can be described by means of a state space description of
the following form:
Tensor State Space Representation of Certain Discrete Time Systems

Discrete Time Systems:
X( i 1,..., ir ) (n + 1) = A( i 1,..., ir ; j1,..., jr ) (n) X( j 1,..., jr ) (n) + B( i 1,..., ir ; j1,..., jp ) (n)U( j 1,..., jp) (n),
Y(l 1,...,ls ) (n) = C(l 1,..., ls ; j 1,..., jr (n) X( j 1,..., jr ) (n) + D(l 1,..., ls ; j 1,..., jp ) (n)U( j 1,..., jp ) (n). (4.11)
where A(n) is an m dimensional tensor of order 2r (called the state coupling tensor ), X(n)
is the state of the dynamical system at the discrete time index n, whereas X(n+1) is the state
of the system at the discrete time index n+1. Furthermore B(n) is an m dimensional tensor
of order r+p ( called the input coupling tensor ), Y(n) is an output tensor of dimension m
and order s. U (n) is an m dimensional input tensor (varying with the discrete time index of
order p) and C(n) (called the state coupling tensor to the output dynamics) is an m -
dimensional tensor of order (s + r), D(n) is the input coupling tensor to the output dynamics
of dimension m and order s+p.
In the above state space description of certain type of multidimensional discrete time
dynamical system, there are r dimension variables which are inherently discrete. The
evolution of the system (changes in the system parameters) occur at discrete time instants.
The notation for index set in the state equations requires some explanation. Since the state
tensor is an m -dimensional tensor of order r, it will have m components. When the system
evolves, it transits through tensors in the state space.
With the summary of tensor functions of scalar argument provided above, the dynamics
of certain type of multi/infinite dimensional continuous time/index systems is described
by the following state space description:
Tensor State Space Representation of Certain Continuous Time Systems

i
X( i 1,..., ir ) (t) = A( i 1,..., ir ; j1,..., jr ) (t) X( j 1,..., jr ) (t) + B( i1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jp ) (t) U( j1,..., jp ) (t),
(4.12)
Y(l 1,..., ls ) (t) = C(l 1,..., ls ; j 1,..., jr ) (t) X( j 1,..., jr ) (t ) + D(l 1,..., ls ; j 1,..., jp ) (t)U( j 1,..., jp ) (t ).
where A(t) is an m dimensional tensor of order 2r (called the state coupling tensor to
the state dynamics), X (t) is the state of the dynamical system at the continuous time/
.
index t, whereas X (t) is derivative of the state of the system. Furthermore, B (t) is the
m dimensional tensor of order r+ p (called the input coupling tensor to the state
dynamics), Y (t) is the output tensor of dimension m and order s. Also, U (t) is an m
dimensional input tensor of dimension m and order p , and C (t) is an m -dimensional
tensor of order (s + r), D (t) is the input coupling tensor to the output of dimension m
and order s + p . It should be noted that the state space description provided above for
certain continuous/discrete index systems hold true even for certain infinite dimensional
systems. In the case of infinite dimensional systems, in the state space descriptions, the
tensors utilized are of dimension/order infinity ( either or both of them). Now, the above
tensor state space representations are contrasted with the conventional approaches in
the representation of certain multidimensional systems.
It is reasoned that the Tensor State Space Representation is an important leap in multi/
infinite dimensional system theory. Also, another objective is to remove the confusion in
the mind of the reader who read the classical literature in multi/infinite dimensional system
theory with matrix linear operator notation. The primary source of confusion is not so
much in the discrete time/index multidimensional systems, but in the case of continuous
time /index multidimensional systems.
Conventional Multidimensional System State Space Representation versus Modern Tensor State
Space Representation:
In section 2 as well as section 3, the limitations of the way system theorists tried to
represent and analyze the two/multidimensional discrete time/index systems is discussed.
Also, the advantages of tensor state space representation (of certain large class of multi/
infinite dimensional systems) discovered and formalized by the author are described. The
transition from the conventional mode of thinking where the system is represented by
means of multiple independent variables, local state/local control are coupled to the system
dynamics by means of matrices to the modern version where tensor notation is utilized,
requires the realization that the linear space utilized in multidimensions is captured through
the tensor and the system dynamics when done in discrete time requires a discrete variable.
The continuous index case requires more imagination to understand the transition
from conventional approaches to the modern approaches. In the conventional
multidimensional system representation, partial differential equations are utilized to
describe the input-output behavior as well as the state (internal description) dynamics. In
the conventional approaches, multiple independent variables are tracked through separate
indices, leading to partial differential equations. But, the utilization of tensor linear operator
and the tensor function of scalar argument enables one to describe the dynamics of tensor
state variable as a function of one continuous time/index variable. Thus, the discrete as
well continuous multi/infinite dimensional system state space representation utilizing
tensors resembles the familiar one dimensional system state space description.
The above tensor state space description reduces to the one dimensional case when the
order of the tensors is one. Thus, various results developed on one dimensional linear
spaces for one dimensional linear systems are readily translated to certain multi/
infinitedimensional systems described through tensor linear spaces (with some care taken
in pathological cases as well as when the problem being solved depends heavily on the
neighborhood set).
4.4 MULTI/INFINITE DIMENSIONAL SYSTEM THEORY: LINEAR

DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS – STATE SPACE REPRESENTATION BY
TENSOR LINEAR OPERATORS
The state space representation of one dimensional linear systems resembles that in (4.11),
( 4.12). In fact, one dimensional linear systems are a very special case of certain multi/
infinite dimensional systems described through (4.11), (4.12). A natural question that
arises is whether it is possible to transfer the results from one dimensional systems to
certain multidimensional systems described through (4.11), (4.12). It is explained in the
following that it is possible to do such a translation provided some care is taken in deriving
the results for certain class of multi/infinite dimensional systems. Some principles which
can be utilized as a guideline in deriving the results for multi/infinite dimensional systems
are provided below:
(1) In the case of one dimensional systems utilizing the state space representation
of a linear system, if a result is derived on the system response (invoking the
standard theorems in the theory of ordinary difference/differential equations),
that result has a corresponding version for multi/infinite dimensional systems
when the inner product and outer product between state vector/input vector/
output vector, matrices appearing in the state space descriptions are replaced by
those between compatible tensors in multi/infinite dimensions. One must exercise
care in making sure that the tensor products make sense.
(2) The tensor state space representation (rather than vectors and matrices in one
dimensional case) enables one to translate the results on controllability,
observability, stability from one dimensional linear space based dynamical systems
to certain multidimensional linear space based dynamical systems. The tensor
state space representation enables one to translate various problems for one
dimensional systems, in a one to one manner to certain multi/infinite dimensional
systems. These problems are defined utilizing the state space structure to be
linear (linear spaces in one/multi/infinite dimensions). In translating the solution
of the problem from one dimension to multidimensions, inner product/outer

product between vector-matrix variables are replaced by those between tensor-
tensor variables. Care should be taken to ensure that the problem statement in
multidimensions doesn’t utilize the neighbourhood structure.
(3) The multi/infinite dimensional state space structure is such that there is no
notion of causality. From 1970s, system theorists, electrical engineers, computer
scientists developed various notions such as quarter plane causality, half plane
causality, other types of causality ( to introduce some form of ordering on the
two/multidimensional state space ) for providing an input-output description.
But the state space representation through tensors (of certain multidimensional
systems) enables one to get the associated input-output description as a special
case ( for such systems ). Thus, various problems in image processing, database
theory, theory of random fields are reformulated utilizing the tensor state space
description and solved in this context. When these problems have multi/infinite
dimensional state space structure (implicitly or explicitly specified) imbedded
into the statement, utilizing the tensor linear operator (or the theory of tensor
linear spaces) and the results in this chapter, they are considered to be solved.
The systems in which problems are formulated can be static or dynamic.
It should be reminded that various problems in different scientific disciplines (as listed
in section 2) which are based on multi/infinite dimensional description are effected by the
tensor state space description for linear dynamical systems. Even static systems where the
state space structure is a multidimensional linear space, utilization of tensor linear operator,
tensor algebra techniques provide convenient tools for formulation as well as solution of
them.
The above generic principles are easily illustrated with the typical problem of response
determination of certain multi/infinite dimensional linear systems (whose dynamics are
captured through the Tensor State Space Representation ). Details are avoided for brevity.
4.5 STOCHASTIC DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS

In the following, multi/infinite dimensional versions of time-series models are discussed.
They are the multi/infinite dimensional versions of Auto-Regressive (AR), Auto-Regressive
Moving Average (ARMA) models. The models are formally described utilizing the tensor
linear operator for the variables. The discrete time, multi/infinite dimensional versions of
AR, ARMA models are given by
Yi 1,..., ir (n + 1) = Ai 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jr (n) ⊗ Yj 1,..., jr (n) + Wi 1,..., ir (n), (4.13)
Yi 1,..., ir (n + 1) = Bi 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jr ⊗ Yj 1,..., jr (n) + Vi 1,..., ir (n) + Ci 1,..., ir ⊗Vj 1,..., jr (n − 1) +
Di 1,..., jr ⊗ Vj 1,..., jr (n − 2) (4.14)

where ⊗ denotes the inner product and the variables such as⊗Yj 1,..., jr (n) are tensors. The
noise models Wi 1,..., ir (n), Vi 1,...,ir (n) are multidimensional versions of white noise.
As in one dimension, the continuous time versions of these models are based on utilizing
a continuous time index t, in the place of discrete time index n and replacing the noise
models in (4.13 and 4.14) by the continuous time white noise or colored noise models. The
formal description is avoided for brevity.
The above models (which effectively reduce to the one dimensional models in the one
dimensional case) enable one to derive various important details related to such stochastic
processes in multi/infinite dimensions. For instance, the autocorrelation tensors, the power
spectrum are derived based on the well known techniques for one dimensional systems. It
should be noted that the multi/infinite dimensional power spectrum estimation problem
(formulated using local state etc.) was well known to be very difficult. Thus, the utilization
of tensor linear operators in certain multidimensional systems enabled one to invoke the
results from one dimensional systems to be extended to certain multidimensional systems.
Various interesting identities arise in the actual analysis. The details are avoided.
In the following, state space representations for arbitrary stochastic linear systems are
described. In one dimension, it is well known that the widely utilized Markov chains
constitute the one dimensional stochastic linear systems. Thus, there has been research
effort to extend the idea, approach to multi/infinite dimensions. Like the deterministic
multi/infinite dimensional linear systems, conventionally various models based on the
local state approach were developed. These are traditionally called the random field
models. With the Tensor State Space Representation (TSSR) (of certain multidimensional
systems) provided in section 3, stochastic multi/infinite dimensional linear systems,
called structured Markov random fields, are based on the tensor linear operator. In the
spirit of the one dimensional approach, the multi/infinite dimensional structured Markov
random fields are homogeneous stochastic linear systems, described by difference
equation of the following form in the discrete time/index
∏ ( n + 1) = ∏ ( n ) ⊗ P( n ) (4.15)
where Π(n) is the tensor of probabilities of the states in the state space, P (n) is the state
transition tensor of the discrete time structured Markov random field. When the structured
Markov random field is homogeneous, then P(n) = P . Both P(n), P are stochastic tensors.
In the continuous time, the multi/infinite dimensional structured Markov random field
is described by means of a generator tensor. It is given by
•
d
∏ (t ) = dt π (t) = π (t) ⊗ Q(t) (4.16)
where Π(t) is the tensor of probabilities of states in the state space at time t, Q (t) is the
generator tensor of the continuous time strucured Markov random field. Q(t) satisfies the
properties of a generator tensor.
The equilibrium distribution of states in the discrete as well as continuous time/index
structured Markov random field are derived through the utilization of the spectral
representation theorem of the linear operator (tensor) utilizing the eigenvalues and
eigentensors of the linear operator.
When the state transition tensor as well as generator tensor have the G/M/1-type
structure, M/G/1-type structure (Neu), the invariant distribution of the random field has
the tensor geometric form. The derivation of the form of invariant distribution and efficient
recursions for the invariant distribution follow from a generalization of the results in one
dimension.
In the following, state space representations for various types of multidimensional stochastic
dynamical systems that are commonly utilized in electrical engineering are discussed.
In the discrete time, the multi/infinite dimensional dynamical system is described by
the difference equation of the following form:
X(n + 1) = A(n) ⊗ X(n) + B(n) ⊗U(n) + W (n)
(4.17)
Y(n) = C(n) ⊗ X(n) + V (n) + D(n) ⊗ U(n)
The tensors A(n), B(n), C(n), D(n) and the state, input, output tensors are of compatible
dimension and order. The noise terms are multi/infinite dimensional extensions of the
independent, identically distributed noise model in one dimension. It is based on the following
tensor based random variable/random process (like vector random variables, vector
random processes) specification. Generally, they are zero mean tensors (each component
random variable has zero mean) and as a sequence constitute independent tensor random
variables. This model is the simplest model that is commonly utilized in stochastic control
theory (ZoP), (SaW). Utilizing Tensor State Space Representation (TSSR), Unified Theory
of Control, Communication and Computation is formalized in (Rama 4).
Co var iance tensor {W (m), W (n)} = Q(m) δ (m − n),
Co var iance tensor {V (m), V (n)} = R(m) δ (m − n), (4.18)
Co var iance tensor {W (m), V (n)} = 0
These plant noise and measurement noise models are assumed to be independent of the
normal random initial state tensor, X( ). The continuous time multi/infinite dimensional
stochastic models utilize continuous time I.I.D. noise (as in one dimension). The state space
model description has an additive I.I.D. noise term to those described in section 3. With
the above state model, theorems in one dimensional stochastic control are extended to
multi/infinite dimensions, since the matrix linear operator is replaced by the tensor linear
operator. In translating the results inner/outer product between vectors/matrices are
replaced by those between the tensors/tensors.
Now, we consider a noise model which describes processes which are more complicated
than the ones considered previously. The colored noise model considered in ARMA time
series model is a special case version of the following noise model. In this model, the noise
processes constitute a structured Markov random field in multi/infinite dimensions. The
plant noise model and measurement noise are uncorrelated/independent. The noise models
satisfy the following equations.
X(n + 1) = A(n) ⊗ X(n) + B(n) ⊗U(n) + L(n)
(4.19)
Y (n) = C(n) ⊗ X(n) + M(n) + D(n) ⊗ U(n)
L(n), M(n) are discrete time structured Markov random fields. The fact that Markov random field
is a stochastic linear system enables one to apply the stochastic dynamic programming. In the
above noise model, the plant and measurement noise are made to be the most general models
that are conceivable, while at the same time they are tractable. The continuous time version of the
state space model has an additive term added to those in section 3.
With the above state space representation, various results developed in one dimensional
stochastic control theory (SaW) are extended to multi/infinite dimensional systems utilizing
the generic principles described in section 3. Thus, various recursive forms for state
estimation, filtering and prediction are translated from one dimensional systems to
multidimensional systems, particularly with the I.I.D. form of noise.
The time series model discussed at the beginning of the section with tensor state space
representation, led the author to provide very detailed linear prediction type results in multi/
infinite dimensions when the noise process is white as well as colored. Thus, the linear prediction
theory, which was so successful in theoretical as well as practical applications is successfully (in
mathematical completeness) advanced to multi/infinite dimensions by the author with the tensor
state space representation. The mathematical equations look familiar with tensor products
being utilized in the equations.
It should be noted that using the signal and noise models described in this section,
multidimensional versions of Wiener and Kalman filters can easily be derived. Various
results on estimation, prediction and control are translated from one dimension to multi-
dimension (Rama 4) (when the multidimensional system has Tensor State Space
Representation i.e. TSSR).
In summary various results developed in one dimensional stochastic control theory,
theory of one dimensional random processes are extended to multi/infinite dimensions
through the Tensor State Space Representation.
4.6 DISTRIBUTED DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS
Distributed dynamical systems are a class of systems which are more general than the
dynamical systems considered above in some sense. They arise in various practical
applications such as the electrical transmission lines (distributed inductance, capacitance,
resistance along the line), image models, models of tomographic images of brain etc.
One/multi/infinite dimensional systems in which the tensors which appear in the
system dynamics that vary with time are one of the simple illustrations of distributed
dynamical systems. These systems illustrate a form of non-homogeneity in the evolution
of the system in the state space i.e. a dependence on the discrete/continuous time index of
the manner in which the state coupling, input coupling, output coupling tensors vary with
time, resulting in a distributed nature of the manner of state transitions depending on the
location i.e. discrete/continuous time index. This naturally motivates considering systems,
based on practical applications, in which the state transitions in multi/infinite dimensions
depend on the location. This is once again reminiscent of the conventional models of two/
multidimensional signal processing. To formally provide models of distributed dynamical
systems in multi/infinite dimensions, the following notation from tensor algebra/analysis
is introduced.
Tensor Functions of Multiple Arguments

It is a rule assigning a value of a tensor B to each admissible value of a set of variables
(t1, t2 ,..., ts ). To indicate such a function, we write
Ci 1,..., in = Ci 1,..., in (t1 ,..., ts ) (4.20)

In the models of distributed systems described in the following, utilizing tensor linear
operators, the state, input, output variables are functions of multiple discrete time/index
or continuous time/index.
The following concept from tensor analysis is also extremely helpful.
Tensor Field:
By a tensor field, we mean a rule assigning a unique value of a tensor to each point of
a certain volume V ( V may be all of space). Let r be the radius vector of a variable point
of V with respect to the origin of some coordinate system. Then, a tensor field is indicated
by writing
Ai 1,..., in = Ai 1,..., in (r ) (4.21)
if the tensor is of order n. A special class of tensor fields are nonstationary fields, which are
functions of both space and time i.e. of both the vector r and the scalar t:
ϕ = ϕ (r , t ), A = A(r , t ) (4.22)
A tensor field is said to be homogeneous if it has no spatial dependence. In this case,
the above reduces to
A = A(t) (4.23)
Tensor fields which are continuous are of utility in physical applications and in modeling
various real life dynamical systems. Non-stationary fields are of utility in modeling
distributed dynamical systems.
It will be evident to an intelligent reader, how the above concepts are utilized in the
following models of distributed dynamical systems. Particularly, tensor fields enable one
to define dynamical systems over regions in the higher dimensional space which are not
bounded by hyperplanes. Such systems are of importance in various practical applications.
Quarter Plane Causal Distributed Dynamical Systems

Motivated by the quarter plane causal model familiar from conventional two dimensional
system theory, the author defines the following model of a linear system distributed in the
plane or two dimensional distributed system. It is given by
(1) (2)
Xi 1,..., ir ( h + 1, k + 1) = A i 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jr ( h, k + 1) ⊗ X j 1,.., jr (h , k + 1) + A i 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., js ( h + 1, k ) ⊗
X j 1,..., js ( h + 1, k ) + B 1i 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jt ( h + 1, k ) ⊗ U j 1,..., jt ( h + 1, k ) (4.24)
Yi 1,..., ip (h , k ) = Ci 1,..., ip ; j 1,..., jr ( h, k ) ⊗ X J 1,..., jr ( h, k ) (4.25)

where X(h, k ), U(h,k), Y(h,k) are the values of the local state tensor, input tensor and output
tensor at (h, k) ∈ Z × Z. The multidimensional extension of this model is described based
on the same spirit in the sense that the nearest/farthest neighbourhood set is partitioned
into causal/non-causal parts and utilizing it in writing the multidimensional difference
equation describing the system dynamics.
For instance, the half plane causal model familiar in two dimensional signal processing
is written utilizing the tensor linear operator in the same spirit as the above quarter plane
causal model.
The spirit in which various notions of causality is introduced into the system evolution in
the state space is by means of natural/artificially induced decomposition of the state space.
The state space is partitioned into neighborhoods and the dynamical system is described by
means of a difference equation (multi/infinite dimensional) of the following form
X{( i 1,..., in )( k )∈( N + 1)} = A(i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn )( k ) ⊗ X {( j 1,...., jn )(k )∈ N} +
B( i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn )( k) ⊗ U{( j 1,..., jn )( k )∈N} (4.26)
Y{(i 1,..., in )(k )∈N} = C( i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn) (k ) ⊗ X {( j 1,..., jn) (k )∈N } +
D( i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn) (k ) ⊗ U{( j 1,..., jn )( k )∈N } (4.27)

where N, N+1 are neighbourhood sets in the multi/infinite dimensional state space which
are not necessarily bounded by hyperplanes (captured by a structure like tensors/matrices).
The above state space description of a dynamical system in discrete index variables is in
the most general format conceivable. The advantages of such a model is the ability to
make an arbitrary choice of the neighbourhood. If the neighborhood is chosen to be one
among those in the set utilized for embedding causality structure onto the state space,
various models result.
The continuous time version of the above model utilizes, non-stationary tensor fields.
The typical system evolution equations are given by
i
X{( i 1,..., in )( t)∈( N + 1)} = A(i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn )(t ) ⊗ X {( j 1,..., jn )(t )∈ N } +
B( i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn )(t) ⊗ U{( j 1,..., jn )(t)∈N} (4.28)
Y{(i 1,..., in )(t )∈N } = C( i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn) (t ) ⊗ X {( j 1,..., jn) (t)∈N} +
D( i 1,..., in ; j 1,..., jn) (t) ⊗ U{( j 1,..., jn )(t)∈ N} (4.29)

i
where, Xi 1,..., in (t) is the tensor of partial derivatives (like the Jacobian matrix, we can call it
a Jacobian tensor) of Xi 1,..., in (t) . Once again this is the most general model conceivable. If
the neighbourhood set is represented by a tensor, we have a very important special case.
If one has understood carefully, the notions of local state, local control and the essential
ideas of the theory of ordinary/partial difference/differential equations, many results
developed in those fields have been adopted to the case where vector-matrix variables are
replaced by the tensor-tensor variables. The outcome of this mathematically formal
approach is:
(i) Results developed by the differential/partial differential equations community are
adopted to the tensor-tensor based equations. Once again, the translation is done with
relative ease, (ii) Distributed dynamical systems are modeled by using the half plane,
quarter plane causal type neighbourhood models. In these models, the matrices/vectors
are replaced by tensors. Various other models based on local state, local control, various
types of decompositions of the state space that arise in fields such as image processing,
tomography etc. are translated to the multidimensional case by replacing the vectors/
matrices by tensors.
Various types of problems formulated and solved in conventional two/
multidimensional system theory are adopted to the tensor based difference/differential
equations by utilizing tensor products and tensor algebra/analysis. Some illustrations of
design, analysis of distributed systems are reported utilizing the tensor linear operators
for local state, local control, local input, local output variables and replacing the vector/
matrix products by means of tensor-tensor products. They are avoided here for brevity.
4.7 CONCLUSIONS
Utilization of tensor linear operator associated with dynamic as well as static linear systems
enables one to formulate as well as solve various known as well as new problems utilizing
the powerful tools of tensor algebra (Rama1). This important representation invoked by
the author is hoped to have useful effect on various scientific/mathematical fields. State
space representation by tensor linear operators is discovered and formalized (Rama1). It is
formally demonstrated how the theory of certain multidimensional systems is developed
utilizing the tensor state space representation and translations of the results from one
dimensional system theory. Approaches to translate one dimensional stochastic control
theory to multi/infinite dimensional systems are briefly described. New state space
representations for distributed dynamical systems are developed which enable translating
the results from conventional state space models of multidimensional systems. Thus, in
essence the tensor linear operator based representation of static as well as dynamic systems
has important impact on various fields of scientific endeavour.
REFERENCES
(BiF) M. Bisiacco and E. Fornasini, “Optimal Control of Two Dimensional Systems,” SIAM
Journal of Control and Optimization, Vol. 28, pp. 582-601, May 1990.
(BoT) A. I. Borisenko and I. E. Tarapov, “Vector and Tensor Analysis with Applications,” Dover
(Gop) M. Gopal, “Modern Control System Theory“, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
(Neu) M.F. Neuts, “Matrix Geometric Solutions in Stochastic Models”, Marcel-Dekker,
Baltimore.
(Rama 1) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Tensor State Space Representation: Multidimensional
Systems, International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (IJSCI), January
2007, page 16-23
Dimensional Logic Theory,” International Journal of Neural Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, June
2005.
(Rama 3) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Multidimensional Neural Networks: Multidimensional
Coding Theory:Constrained Static Optimization” Proceedings of 2002 IEEE International
Workshop on Information Theory.
(Rama 4) “Optimal Control, Codeword, Logic Function Tensors: Multidimensional Neural
Networks, IJSCI, October 2006, Pages 9-17.
(SaW) Sage and White, “Optimal Control Theory,” Academic Press.
(Zop) R. Zoppoli and T. Parisini, “Learning Techniques and Neural Networks for the
Solution of N-stage Non-linear No n-quadratic Optimal Control Problems,” Topics in 2-d
System Theory, 1992.
This page
intentionally left
blank
CHAPTER
5
Unified Theory of Control,
Communication and Computa-
tion: Multidimensional Neural
Networks
5.1 INTRODUCTION
In the mid 1940s, Norbert Wiener coined the word Cybernetics for the research field
dedicated to understand the control, communication, computation and other such functions
of living systems. It is well agreed that these functions of living systems are controlled by
various functional sub-assemblies in the brain synthesized through bio-chemical circuits.
Research work on this field was pursued by several researchers in diverse fields. The multi-
disciplinary effort resulted in progressing the literature on the subject. But no formally
precise discoveries were made.
Also, starting in 1950s, the research efforts in electrical engineering discipline led to
the isolated theories of control, communication and computation. The central goal of these
three fields is summarized in the following:
• The problem of communication is to convey a message from one point in space
and time to another point in space and time as reliably as possible.
• The problem of control is to move a system from one point in state space to
another point in state space such that a certain objective function is minimized
• The problem of computation is to process a set of input symbols and produce
another set of output symbols based on some information processing operation.
These three problems, on the surface seem to be unrelated to one another.
Also, in the mid 1960s, several researchers became interested in the mathematical model of
the nervous system. This effort was meant to complement the research in cybernetics. Hopfield/
Amari succeeded in providing an abstract model of associative memory. Based on this abstract
model, researchers are led to the following question which remained unanswered.
Question: Is it true that the functional units responsible for control, communication
and computation are synthesized through a network of homogeneous neurons?
Occasionally research efforts led to establishing some relationship between the three
fields. But, in this chapter it is shown (with mathematical clarity and preciseness) that in the
sense of optimization ( consolidating the earlier efforts of other authors) of some objective
function, these three problems are related to one another leading to one form of unification.
From a practical point of view, this unification leads to design of brain of powerful robots.
With the efforts of the author, Boolean Logic theory was generalized to multi/infinite
dimensions using an optimization approach (Rama 1). This approach led to the area of
multidimensional neural networks (Rama 1). Also using the generalization of results in (BrB)
in one dimension, multidimensional linear as well as non-linear codes are related to
multidimensional neural networks. Thus using these results the research fields: Computation
and Communication are related through the common thread of neural networks. In this
paper, the main achievement of the author is to show that optimal control tensors of certain
multidimensional systems are synthesized as the stable states of neural networks. Thus
utilizing the results summarized in this paragraph, Unified Theory of Control,
Communication and Computation is generalized to multidimensional systems.
This chapter is organized in the following manner. In section 2, unification of control,
communication and computation in one dimensional systems is summarized. In Section 3,
the discovery and formalization of Tensor State Space Representation of certain
multidimensional systems is briefly discussed. Using this representation, optimal control
tensors (in a well known criteria of optimality) are shown to constitute the stable states of
a multidimensional Hopfield neural network. In Section 4, utilizing the results in (Rama
1), (Rama 2), Unified Theory of Control, Communication and Computation in
multidimensional systems is formally described. Conclusions are reported in Section 5.
5.2 ONE DIMENSIONAL LOGIC FUNCTIONS, CODEWORD VECTORS,

OPTIMAL CONTROL VECTORS: ONE DIMENSIONAL NEURAL
NETWORKS
Researchers such as Hopfield realized that an associative memory is associated with

optimizing a quadratic form over the hypercube. Other authors also realized that the concept
of a logic gate (CAB) (in one dimension), concept of error correcting code (BrB) could be
related to one dimensional neural networks (optimizing a quadratic/higher degree form).
These efforts are summarized in the following paragraphs. The essential goal of this section
is to summarize unification of control, communication and computation functions (in one
dimensional systems) through the common thread of one dimensional neural networks.
One Dimensional Logic Theory: One Dimensional Neural Networks

One dimensional logic theory as well as logic synthesis deal with information processing
logic gates and logic circuits which operate on one dimensional arrays of zeroes and ones
(or more generally one dimensional arrays containing finitely many symbols). The
Unified Theory of Control, Communication and Computation: Multidimensional Neural Networks 81
operations performed by AND, OR, NOR, NAND, XOR gates have appropriate intuitive
interpretation in terms of the entries of the one dimensional arrays i.e. vectors.
Research in the area of artifical neural networks led to the problem whether all one
dimensional logic gates can be synthesized using a single layer neural network. Chakradhar
et al. provided an answer to the problem. They showed that the set of stable states of a
Hopfield neural network correspond to one dimensional logic functions (CAB).
Equivalently, the input and output signal states of a logic gate are related through an
energy function. The outputs correspond to the stable states of neural network (which
constitute the local optima of the energy function). Thus, in a well defined sense, one
dimensional neural networks and logic theory are related.
One Dimensional Error Correcting Codes: One Dimensional Neural Networks

In (BrB), several ways of relating the concept of neural networks and the concept of error
correcting codes are presented. Specifically it is shown that, given a linear block code, a
neural network can be constructed in such a way that every local maximum of the energy
function corresponds to a codeword and every codeword correspond to a local maximum.
Also it is shown that performing maximum likelihood decoding in a linear block error
correcting code is shown to be equivalent to finding a global maximum of the energy
function of certain neural network. Thus, one dimensional neural networks and error
correcting codes are related.
One Dimensional Optimal Control Vectors: One Dimensional Neural Networks

In dealing with the problem of storage of data in magnetic and optical recording systems,
Wyner formulated an important open research problem (GoC). The problem is “Consider a
Single Input, Single Output, (SISO) linear time invariant continous time system. Consider
the input which is constrained to assume values between +1 and –1. Determine the optimal
input signals which maximize the total output energy over a finite horizon”. This problem
was solved by the author in (Rama 5) and independently by Honig et al. (HoS). In (RKB), the
author formulated and solved the problem in the case of SISO discrete time, linear time
invariant systems. The result in the case of discrete time SISO systems shows that the optimal
control vectors over a finite horizon constitute the stable states of a Hopfield Neural Network.
Thus optimal control vectors are synthesized as the local optima of energy function associated
with a Hopfield neural network. The associated derivation is provided in Chapter 7.
Thus, the research work summarized in the previous paragraphs shows that optimal
control vectors, optimal codeword vectors and optimal logic gate outputs are synthesized
as the stable states of a one dimensional neural network (not necessarily same). Hence the
three research areas of control, communication and computation are unified using the
common thread of neural networks. One should note that the unification is done in one
dimension (one independent variable). In the following, we extend the unification to
multidimensions. Particularly in the following section, the main achievement of the author
(in this chapter) is discussed.
5.3 OPTIMAL CONTROL TENSORS: MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL

NETWORKS
In the case of one dimensional linear systems, it was shown that the state space
representation of the dynamics is much better than input-output description. Specifically,
state space representation naturally leads to concepts such as controllability, observability
associated with the system.
Unfortunately, in the case of multidimensional systems, there is no natural notion of
causality. Thus system theorists introduced notions such as quarter-plane causality, half-
plane causality etc by partitioning the index set for state variables. In contrast to these
approaches, the author discovered and formalized (Rama 3), Tensor State Space
Representation (TSSR) of CERTAIN multidimensional systems. It is discussed in (Rama 3)
that this particular representation enables transferring results from one dimensional
systems (with vector-matrix state space representation) to certain multidimensional
systems.
In summary, CERTAIN multi/infinite dimensional discrete time/index dynamical
systems can be described by means of a state space description of the following form:
Tensor State Space Representation of Certain Discrete Time Systems

Discrete Time Systems
X( i 1,..., ir ) (n + 1) = A( i 1,..., ir ; j1,..., jr ) (n) ⊗ X( j 1,..., jr ) (n) + B( i 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jp ) (n) ⊗ U ( j 1,..., jp ) (n),
Y( l1,..., ls ) (n) = C( l1,..., ls ; j 1,..., jr ) (n) ⊗ X( j 1,..., jr ) (n) + D ( l1,..., ls ; j 1,..., jp ) (n) ⊗ U( j 1,..., jp ) (n). (5.1)
Where ⊗ denotes inner product operation between compatible tensors (BoT). Also in (5.1),
A(n) is an m dimensional tensor of order 2r (called the state coupling tensor ), X(n) is the
state of the dynamical system at the discrete time index n, whereas X(n+1) is the state of
the system at the discrete time index n+1. Furthermore B(n) is an m dimensional tensor of
order r+p ( called the input coupling tensor ), Y(n) is an output tensor of dimension m and
order s. U(n) is an m dimensional input tensor of order p (varying with the discrete time
index of order p) and C(n) (called the state coupling tensor to the output dynamics) is an
m-dimensional tensor of order (s + r), D(n) is the input coupling tensor to the output
dynamics of dimension m and order s + p.
With the above important representation of certain multidimensional systems, we
formulate and solve an important problem in optimal control of certain multidimensional
systems. The solution of the problem shows that the optimal control tensors are synthesized
as the stable states of a multidimensional Hopfield neural network (The connection structute
of m -d Hopfield neural network is a fully symmetric tensor).
Problem Definition
Find an admissible sequence of (realizable) input signal tensors, U(k ) for k ∈ { 0, 1, 2, ....}
(with each component of the tensor being bounded in amplitude by unity (one) or without
loss of generality be a fixed constant) i.e. Ui 1, i 2,..., ir ( k ) ≤ 1 in order to minimize the criterion
−1  kf 
J = 2  ∑ Yin ,..., i 1 ( k ) ⊗ Yi1,..., in ( k )  (5.2)
 k=0 
subject to
X (n +1) = A(n ) ⊗ X (n) + B(n ) ⊗ U (n) (5.3)
Y (n ) = C ( n ) ⊗ X ( n ) (5.4)
where A(n), B(n), C(n), D(n) are tensors arising in the system dynamics of the discrete
time multi/infinite dimensional system. Furthermore, X(n) is the state tensor of the system.
These tensors which arise in the system dynamics are of compatible dimensions. Without
loss of generality, a multi-input, multi-output multidimensional linear system is considered.
Let the impulse response tensor of the system be denoted by h(k, l). This is the discrete
time version of the problem given in (GoC) for CERTAIN discrete time multidimensional
systems. The open problem given in (GoC) is solved in (Rama 5).
Problem Definition
The optimality condition is derived through the application of the maximum principle or
equivalently, the dynamic programming principle. The application of dynamic
programming enables us to derive the necessary as well as sufficient condition through
the principle of optimality in some cases.
Discrete time, Time Varying Linear Systems:

Let U(k) , k = 0, 1, 2, ..... k f − 1 be the optimal control tensor sequence, and let X (k) , k =
0,1,2 ,..., be the state response of the linear system due to the input tensors U(k), uniquely
specified by (5.3), (5.4) and the initial condition of the linear dynamical system. Then, under
reasonable assumptions, discussed in the application of the discrete maximum principle
(SaW), it is shown that there exists a non-trivial function satisfying
δ H(Xk , Uk , λk + 1 , k )
λk = (5.5)
δ Xk
where the Pontryagin function/Hamiltonian is given by
−1
H(X k , U k , λk + 1 , k ) = (C(k ) ⊗ X(k ))in ,..., i1 ⊗ (C(k ) ⊗ X(k ))i1,..., in +
2
λil ,..., i 1 (k + 1) ⊗ [ A(k ) ⊗ X (k ) + B(k ) ⊗ U (k )] (5.6)
Thus, the adjoint tensor equation for the problem is given by

λ ( k ) = − C jm , jm −1,..., j 1 ( k ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k ) + Ais ,..., i 1 ( k ) ⊗ λ ( k + 1) (5.7)
Since, the terminal state is unspecified, we have
λ ( k f ) = − C jm ,..., j 1 ( k f ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k f ) (5.8)
This will provide the terminal condition for solving (5.7). Since the input tensor sequence
is constrained, it must necessarily satisfy
H (X k ,U k , λk + 1 , k ) = Min H ( Xk ,V , λk + 1 , k ) for all k = 0,1,..., k f − 1,
V ∈T
Where T is the constraint set.

Thus,
U ( k ) = − Sign (Bsl ,..., S1 (k ) ⊗ λ t 1 ,...., tn ( k + 1)) (5.9)
Solving (5.7) for λ(k + 1) and substituting in (5.9), we arrive at the optimal control
sequence. When the constraint set is other than a hypercube, various well known techniques
from mathematical programming for different constraint sets such as a convex polytope,
convex polyhedra are invoked in the context of quadratic programming. The cost function
is quadratic and it is optimized over various types of constraint sets such as the one
described previously.
With the terminal state specified, the equation (5.7) is recursed backwards to arrive at
the optimal control tensor in the case of multi/infinite dimensional systems. Thus, an
efficient computational form for solving the two point boundary value problem is
derived in the following. It should be noted that, we derive the expression for λk +1 in the
case of certain linear time varying multi/infinite dimensional dynamical systems
λ ( k ) = − C jm ,..., j 1 ( k ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k ) + Ais ,..., i 1 ( k ) ⊗ λ ( k + 1) (5.10)
starting with the terminal condition, recursing backwards.
Remark
Before we proceed further, it should be reminded that the indices for tensor describing the
order of the tensor are given values by the symbols that came to mind. The tensors in the
above state space representation are of compatible order to ensure that inner and outer
products make sense. Now, we return to the derivation. In the following, the notation ⊗ is
utilized to denote the inner product (BoT) between the tensors of compatible order.
λt1,..., tl (k f ) = – C jm ,..., j 1 (k f ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip (k f ) (5.11)
λt1,..., tl (k f −1 ) = − C jm ,..., j 1 (k f −1 ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip (k f −1 ) − Ais ,..., i 1 (k f −1 ) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 (k f ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip (k f ) (5.12)

λt1,..., tl (k f − 2 ) = − C jm ,..., j 1 (k f − 2 ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip (k f − 2 ) − Ais ,..., i 1 (k f − 2 ) ⊗ C jm,..., j 1 (k f −1 ) ⊗

Yi 1,..., ip (k f − 1 ) − Ais ,..., i 1 (k f − 2 ) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 (k f − 1 ) ⊗ C jm,..., j 1 (k f ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip (k f ) (5.13)
λt1,..., tl ( k f − 3 ) = − Cjm ,..., j 1 ( k f − 3 ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k f − 3 ) − Ais ,..., i 1 ( k f − 3 ) ⊗ Cjm,..., j 1 ( k f − 2 ) ⊗

Yi 1,..., ip (k f − 2 ) − Ais ,..., i 1 (k f − 3 ) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 ( k f − 2 ) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 (k f − 1 ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k f − 1 )
– A is ,..., i 1( k f – 3 ) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 ( k f – 2 ) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 ( k f –1 ) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 ( k f ) ⊗ Yi 1,...,ip ( k f ) (5.14)
Thus, continuing the solution of the difference equation backwards, we have
λt1,..., tl ( k f − l ) = − Cjm ,..., j 1 ( k f − l ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k f − l ) − Ais ,..., i 1 ( k f − l ) ⊗ Cjm,..., j 1 ( k f − l + 1 ) ⊗
Yi 1,..., ip (k f – l + l ) − Ais ,..., i 1 (k f – l ) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 (k f – l + 1 ) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 (k f – l + 2 ) ⊗Yi 1,..., ip (k f – l + 2 )
–... – A is ,...,i 1 ( k f – l ) ⊗ A is ,..., i 1 ( k f – l + 1 ) ⊗ ... ⊗ A is ,..., i 1 ( k f – 1 ) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 ( k f ) ⊗ Yi 1,..., (k f ) (5.15)
Let l = k f − k −1 . This implies k f − l = k +1 . Hence, by the substitution,
λtl ,..., tl ( k + 1) = − C jm ,..., j 1 ( k + 1) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k + 1) − Ais ,..., i 1 ( k + 1) ⊗ Cjm,..., j 1 ( k + 2) ⊗
Yi 1,..., ip (k + 2) − Ais ,..., i 1 (k + 1) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 ( k + 2) ⊗ C jm,..., j 1 (k + 3) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip (k + 3)
−... − Ais ,..., i 1 ( k + 1) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 (k + 2) ⊗ ... ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 ( k + l) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 (k + l + 1) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip ( k + l + 1)
(5.16)
Thus we have the optimal control solution for the problem given by (utilizing (5.9))
Uv 1,..., vr ( k ) = Sign (Bsl ,..., s1 (k ) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 (k + 1) ⊗ Y( k + 1) +
∑B
i =1
sl ,..., s1 ( k ) ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 (k + 1) ⊗ .... ⊗ Ais ,..., i 1 ( k + i) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 ( k + i + 1) ⊗ Yi 1,..., ip (k + i + 1) ) (5.17)
Now, utilizing the definition of the impulse response tensor of the time varying linear
system, we have
Uv 1,..., vr ( k ) = Sign (Bsl ,..., s1 ( k ) ⊗ C jm ,..., j 1 ( k + 1) ⊗ Y( k + 1) +
∑ h (k + i + 1, k ) ⊗ Y(k + i + 1))
i =1
(5.18)
l
= Sign (∑ h (k + i + 1, k ) ⊗ Y(k + i + 1) )
i=0
h(.,.) is the transposed tensor of the impulse response tensor. The term in the
parenthesis is given by
l l k +i +1
∑ h (k + i + 1, k) ⊗ Y(k + i + 1) = ∑ h (k + i + 1, k ) ⊗ ∑ h (k + i + 1, j) ⊗ u ( j)
i=0 i=0 j=0
(5.19)
Exchanging the order of summation, (with the help of associated index grid), we have
kf kf − k − 1
∑
j =0
∑
i = max imum {0, j − k − 1}
( h ( k + i + 1, k ) ⊗ h ( k + i + 1, j) ⊗ u( j) (5.20)
Rewriting the above expression for optimal control, we have
 kf kf − k − 1

U ∗ (k ) = Sign  ∑ ∑ (h (k + i + 1, k ) ⊗ h (k + i + 1, j )) ⊗ U ( j )  (5.21)
 j = 0 i = max{1, j − k − 1} 
Let us define
kf − k − 1
R(k , j ) = ∑ (h (k + i + 1, k ) ⊗ h (k + i + 1, j)) (5.22)
i = max{1, j − k − 1}
Thus, we have for the optimal control,

kf
U ∗ ( k ) = Sign ( ∑ R( k , j) ⊗ U( j)) (5.23)
j=0
Now, for the time invariant linear systems, we have

kf − k − 1
R( k , j) = ∑ (h(i + 1) ⊗ h(k + i + 1 − j)
i = max {1, j − k − 1}
(5.24)
This is the energy density tensor of time invariant linear system obtained from the
impulse response tensor. Thus the optimal control tensor is the stable state of a
multidimensional Hopfield neural network.
Continuous Time Dynamical Systems

Now, we formulate and solve the continuous time versions of the problems. The
continuous time versions of the problem provides us with the structure of the local optimum
of a quadratic form over the continuous time multi/infinite dimensional hypercube. This is
the problem where the L∞ norm of the control tensors is constrained in amplitude by unity.
In the derivation of the optimal control, the following definition is necessary.
Integral of Tensor Function of a Scalar Argument:

By the integral of a tensor of a scalar continuous argument, we mean the tensor with
the components,
∫A i 1,..., i (t) dt or ∫A i 1,..., in (t1 ,..., tn ) dt1 dt 2 ... dm (5.25)
Optimal Control Problem Formulation

Consider a multi/infinite dimensional linear system with continuous index/argument.
The system dynamics are given by
.
X i 1,..., ir ( t ) = Ai 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jr (t) ⊗ X j 1,..., jr (t ) + Bi 1,..., ir ; j 1,..., jp (t ) ⊗ U j 1,..., jp (t)
Yl 1,..., ls (t) = Cl1,..., ls ; j 1,..., jr (t) ⊗ X j 1,..., jr (t) (5.26)

The objective function being minimized in the optimal control problem is given by
tf tf
−1
J = ∫ Yls ,..., l 1 (t) ⊗ Yl 1,..., ls (t) dt = ∫ φ (X , U , t ) dt (5.27)
2 to to
subject to the constraint given in (5.26) and the input tensors are constrained to be on the
continuous time multi/infinite dimensional hypercube.
Solution:
Form the Pontryagin function ( or Hamiltonian) of the problem. It is given by
−1
H (X , U , λ , t) = (C(t) ⊗ X(t))ls ,..., l 1 ⊗ (C(t) ⊗ X(t))l 1,..., ls +
2
λir ,..., i 1 (t) ⊗ ( A(t) ⊗ X(t) + B(t) ⊗ U(t)) (5.28)
Minimize the Pontryagin function H ( X , U , λ , t ) with respect to all the admissible

control tensors i.e. control tensors whose components are constrained in amplitude by
unity. Thus,
U* j 1,..., jp (t) = − Sign {Bjp ,..., j 1;ir ,..., i 1 (t) ⊗ λi 1,..., ir (t)}
Thus, the optimal control tensors for the problem is obtained from the above equation.
To explicitly determine the optimal control, the adjoint equations and associated boundary
conditions are given by
. δ H(X , U , λ , t) δφ ( X , U , t) δ
[ A(t) X(t) + B(t)U(t)] ⊗ λ(t),
T
− λi 1,..., ir (t) = = +
δX δX δX
δ
where is a partial derivative operator, (5.29)
δX
λi 1,..., ir (t f ) = 0
The above equations (5.28), (5.29) alongwith the system dynamics described through
(5.26) are solved for determining λi 1,..., ir (t)
i
−λi 1,..., ir (t) = − Cls ,..., l1 (t) ⊗ Cl1,..., ls (t) ⊗ Xi 1,..., ir (t)  + Ajr ,..., j 1; ir ,..., i 1 (t) ⊗ λi 1,..., ir (t)
with λi 1,..., ir (t f ) = 0 (5.30)
λi 1,..., ir (t) = − Ajr ,..., j 1; ir ,..., i 1 (t) ⊗ λi 1,..., ir (t) + Cl 1,..., ls (t) ⊗ Yl 1,..., ls (t)
with λi 1,..., ir (t f ) = 0 . (5.31)

The above differential equation is solved, like the state equations for the linear dynamical
system, to arrive at
t
λi 1,..., ir (t) = φ (t , t f ) ⊗ λ (t f ) + ∫ φ (t , τ ) ⊗ Cls ,..., l 1 (τ ) ⊗ Yl 1,..., ls (τ ) dτ ,

a a
(5.32)
tf
d a
φ (t ,τ ) = − Ajr ,..., j 1; ir ,..., i 1 (t) ⊗ φ a (t , τ ) (5.33)
dt
φ a ( t ,τ ) = I ; φ a ( t , t f ) = φ ( t f , t )
where φ (t f , t ) is the state transition tensor. Thus, we have

a
λi 1,..., ir (t) = ∫ φ (t ,τ ) ⊗ Cls ,..., l1 (τ ) ⊗ Yl1,..., ls (τ )dτ

a
tf
= ∫ φ (τ , t) ⊗ C
tf
ls ,..., l1 (τ ) ⊗ Yl1,..., ls (τ )dτ (5.34)
tf
= − ∫ φ (τ , t) ⊗ Cls ,..., l1 (τ ) ⊗ Yl1,..., ls (τ )dτ

t
Hence, we have
−Bjp ,..., j 1; ir ,..., i 1 (t) ⊗ λi 1,..., ir (t) =
tf
∫B
t
jr ,..., j1; ir ,..., j1 (t) ⊗ φ (τ , t) ⊗ Cls ,..., l 1 (τ ) ⊗ Yl 1,..., ls (τ )dτ (5.35)
where
τ
Yl1,..., ls (τ ) = ∫ Cl1,..., ls (τ ) ⊗ φ (τ , s) ⊗ B( s) ⊗ U ( s)ds (5.36)
to
Thus, we have
− B jp , ..., j 1 ; ir , ..., i 1 (t) ⊗ λ i1, ..., ir (t)
tf τ
= ∫
t
B j p , ..., j1 ; ir , ..., i1 (t ) ⊗ φ (τ , t ) ⊗ C ls, ..., l1 (τ ) ⊗ [ ∫
t0
C(τ ) ⊗ φ (τ , s) ⊗ B(s ) ⊗ U ( s ) ds] dτ (5.37)
Exchanging the order of integration (with associated index diagram)

−Bjp ,..., j 1; ir ,..., i 1 t ⊗ λi 1,..., ir (t) =
tf tf
∫ ∫B
0 s
jp ,..., i 1 (t) ⊗ φ (τ , t) ⊗ Cls ,..., l 1 (τ ) ⊗ Cl1,..., ls (τ ) ⊗ φ (τ , s) ⊗ Bi 1,..., jp ( s) dsdτ (5.38)
But, the impulse response tensor is given by


H j1 ,..., jp (t , τ ) = Cl 1,..., ls (t) ⊗ φ (t , τ ) ⊗ Bi 1,..., jp (τ ) t ≥τ
 (5.39)
0 t <τ
Utilizing the above expression in (5.37),
tf tf
− B jp ,..., j 1; ir ,..., i 1 ( t ) ⊗ λ j1 ,..., ir ( t ) = ∫ ∫ H jp ,..., j1 (τ , t ) ⊗ H j1 ,..., jp (τ , s) dτ ⊗ U ( s) ds (5.40)

0 s
Thus, the optimal control tensor is given by
U * j 1,..., jp (t) = −Sign (Bjp ,..., j 1) (t) ⊗ λj 1,..., jr (t)
 tf 
= Sign  ∫ R(t , s) ⊗ U * j 1,..., jp ( s)ds  (5.41)
 
0 
where R(t,s) is the energy density tensor of the linear system and is given by
tf
R(t , s) = ∫ H jp ,..., j1 (τ , t ) ⊗ H j1 ,..., jp (τ , s) dτ (5.42)

s
For, linear time invariant multidimensional systems, H (τ , s ) , the impulse response tensor
is dependent only on the difference between arguments/indices. Thus, the necessary
condition on the optimal control (for continuous time multidimensional systems) is given
by (5.41). It shows that the optimal control tensor is the stable state of a continuous time
(Hopfield type) neural network. One must understand that the concept of continuous
time multidimensional neural network is conceived by the author in (Rama 4). It should
be noted that when the objective function is a higher degree form (rather than quadratic
form), similar derivations are done. Details are avoided for brevity.
5.4 MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS: OPTIMAL CONTROL TENSORS,

CODEWORD TENSORS AND SWITCHING FUNCTION TENSORS
In view of the results in previous section, in the following, we briefly summarize the results
discussed in (Rama 1) and (Rama 2) so that we realize that the unification (of control,
communication and computation functions) in one dimension, discussed and formalized
by the author also naturally extends to multidimensional systems.
Multidimensional Logic Theory: Multidimensional Neural Networks

In one dimensional logic theory, operations performed by AND, OR, NOR, NAND, XOR,
NOT gates have appropriate intuitive interpretation in terms of the entries of the one
dimensional arrays i.e.vectors. Any effort to generalize the one dimensional logic operations
to multidimensions leads to various heuristic possibilities and requires considerable
ingenuity in formalizing the definition. But, in the following, utilizing the multidimensional
neural network model [ described in (Rama1) ], a formal/mathematical procedure to
multidimensional logic theory is described.
The input and output signal states of a multidimensional logic gate are related through
an energy function. Equivalently, the multidimensional logic functions are associated with
the local optima of various energy functions defined over the set of input multidimensional
arrays. In view of the mathematical model of multidimensional neural network [ conceived
in (Rama1) ], it is most logical to define the maximum/minimum energy states of a
multidimensional neural network (optimizing an energy function over the
multidimensional hypercube) to correspond to the multidimensional logic gate functions
operating on the input arrays. Similarly generalized multidimensional neural networks
(optimizing a higher degree form) are utilized to define generalized logic functions.
Now we summarize the relationship between multidimensional codes and
multidimensional neural networks.
Multidimensional Coding Theory: Multidimensional Neural Networks

In the field of one dimensional error correcting codes, various linear as well as non-linear
codes are designed by various researchers. The approaches utilized were mathematically
very sound. But some researchers tried to extend the approach to two/three/
multidimensional code design with limited success.
The author (for the first time) conceived the idea of utilizing a generator tensor to represent
a multidimensional linear code. Given this idea and the results in (BrB) [ relating one
dimensional linear/non-linear codes to generalized neural networks], multidimensional linear
as well as non-linear codes are related to multidimensional generalized neural networks.
One specific result is the following (Details can be found in (Rama 2) ): Given a
multidimensional block code (linear or non-linear), a neural network can be constructed in
such a way that every local maximum of the energy function corresponds to a codeword
tensor and every codeword tensor corresponds to a local maximum (i.e. stable state).
Unification: Now utilizing the results in Section 3 (relating optimal control tensors and
multidimensional neural networks), we readily have the unification of control,
communication and computation (through the common thread of neural networks).
Formally, the optimal control tensors, optimal multidimensional logic functions,
multidimensional codeword tensors are synthesized through the stable states of
multidimensional neural (generalized) networks.
In the above unification discussion, we only considered neural (generalized neural)
networks in discrete time. In equation (5.41), we discovered and formalized the concept of
continuous time neural associative memory (with the energy function being a quadratic
form associated with certain Kernel).
Continuous time generalized neural networks are defined and associated with
optimal control tensors, optimal codeword tensors and optimal switching functions.
Unified theory with generalized neural networks follows in a similar fashion. Details
are avoided here for brevity.
In view of formal clarity, the following theorem is a comprehensive statement of the
unification of control, communication and computation functions (with quadratic energy
function/objective function) The generalization to the case of higher degree energy function
follows in a similar manner.
Theorem 5.1: Consider a linear time varying multidimensional system with the state space
representation provided in (5.3), (5.4). The optimal control tensor (subject to a finite
amplitude constraint, i.e. Uv1,..., vr ≤ 1 o r, N), optimal switching function (in the sense of a
transformation between an input tensor and an output tensor), optimal linear
multidimensional code constitute the local optimum of a quadratic form in the components
of state variable, input, output tensors. Thus, in the case of linear dynamical systems, with
quadratic energy/objective function, the optimal control tensors, optimal switching
function, optimal linear code are unified to be the local optima of a quadratic form (with
argument/index/time varying coefficient tensors for time varying systems) over the
multidimensional hypercube. Thus these local optima are synthesized as the stable states
of neural/generalized neural network.
Proof: From (Rama1), the stable states of a multidimensional neural network constitute
the local optimum of a quadratic form with the fully symmetric connection tensor as the
weighting tensor. The convergence theorem for (infinite) multidimensional neural networks
provides a formal result. These local optima are defined to be the multidimensional logic
functions in the sense of a mapping between the input tensors and the stable state tensor.
But, from (5.23), the optimal control tensors which optimize a quadratic objective function
have the stable state structure of an interconnected multidimensional neural network with
block fully symmetric connection structure. Thus, the optimal control and optimal switching
function which optimize a quadratic objective function constitute the stable states of a
multidimensional neural network.
From (Rama 2), it is formally true that the connection structure of a multidimensional
graph-type structure (say graphoid) is associated with a multidimensional linear code through
its cut space. These cutset codes are termed graph-theoretic codes. It is also proved in (Rama
2) that maximum likelihood decoding of a corrupted word (received word) with respect to
the graphoid theoretic code is equivalent to finding the global optimum of the quadratic
energy function associated with a multidimensional neural network. Furthermore, it is shown
that a tensor constitutes the local optimum of a multi-variate polynomial in the components
of input, output tensors (quadratic tensor form) if and only if ( the polynomial is associated
with the parity check tensor) it is a codeword of the multidimensional linear code. Thus,
associated with the generator/parity check tensor of graphoid theoretic code, there exists a
quadratic form whose local optimum constitute the codewords (quadratic form over the
multidimensional hypercube).
Hence the optimal code, optimal control and optimal switching function which
constitute the local optimum of a multi-variate quadratic form ( in the components of
state, input, ouput tensors) are unified to be the same. This constitutes the statement of
unified theory of control, communication and computation in linear dynamical systems (time
varying as well as time invariant systems) with a quadratic form as the objective function.
Q. E. D.
In a future revision, it is discussed how the unification extends to other important
functions. Generalization of the results to certain infinite dimensional systems is also
discussed.
5.5 CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, based on the work of author and earlier authors, the unification of control,
communication and computation functions (through the common thread of neural
networks) is formalized. The main contribution of the author for unification in one
dimension is to show that the optimal control vectors (in a well known optimality criterion)
constitute the stable states of a Hopfield network. The next important step was to envision
unification in multidimensions. Based on the concept of multidimensional neural networks
(Rama1, Rama 2), the author was able to formally unify communication and computation
functions. Tensor State Space Representation (TSSR) conceived and formalized by the author
was utilized to prove that the optimal control tensors constitute the stable states of a
multidimensional neural network (in discrete as well as continuous time systems). With
this important result, the author was able to show that optimal codewords, optimal logic
functions and optimal control tensors constitute the stable states of a multidimensional
neural network.
REFERENCES
(BoT) A. I. Borisenko and I. E. Tarapov, “Vector and Tensor Analysis with Applications“, Dover
(BrB) J. Bruck and M. Blaum, “Neural Networks, Error Correcting Codes and Polynomials Over
the Binary Hypercube“, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 35, No. 5, September
1989.
(CAB) S.T. Chakradhar, V.D. Agrawal and M.L. Bushnell, “Neural Models and Algorithms
for Digital Testing“, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991.
(GoC) B. Gopinath and T. Cover, “Open Problems in Control, Communication and Computation“,
Springer, Heidelberg, 1987.
(HoS) M.Honig and K. Stieglitz, “On Wyner’s conjecture” Bellcore Technical
Memorandum.
Dimensional Logic Theory“, International Journal of Neural Systems, Vol.15, No.3, Pages
223-235, June 2005.
(Rama 2) Garimella Rama Murthy, “Multidimensional Coding Theory: Multidimensional Neural
Networks“, In part presented at the 2002 IEEE International Workshop on Information
Theory.
(Rama 3) G. Rama Murthy, “Tensor State Space Representation: Multidimensional Systems“,
International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (IJSCI), January 2007,
pages 16-23.
(Rama 4) G. Rama Murthy, “Optimal Control, Codeword, Logic Function Tensors:
Multidimensional Neural Networks”, International Journal... (IJSCI), October 2006, Pages 9-
17.
(Rama 5) G. Rama Murthy, “Signal Design for Magnetic and Optical Recording Channels: Spectra
of Bounded Functions“, Bellcore Technical Memorandum, TM-NWT-018026, December 1990.
(RKB) G. Rama Murthy, P. Krishna Reddy and L. Behera, “Neural Network Based Optimal
Binary Filters”, submitted to Elsevier Signal Processing Journal.
(Gop) M. Gopal, “Modern Control System Theory“, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
(SaW) Sage and White, “Optimum Systems Control“, Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey 07632.
This page
intentionally left
blank
CHAPTER
6
Comple
ComplexxV alued Neural
Valued
Associative Memory on the
Comple
Complexx Hypercube
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The Hopfield model of the neural network is designed basing on the McCulloch-Pitts
neuron. In this network the computation of the algebraic threshold function is carried out
at each node. The edge between two nodes is associated with a weight. This network can
hence be represented with a weight matrix which is nothing but a symmetric matrix where
Wi , j represents the weight associated with the edge connecting the neurons i and j . Since
it is a symmetric matrix, (i.e., the network represented by an undirected graph), we have
Wi , j = W j ,i . The threshold function can be calculated at each neuron using the function
 1, if Hi (t ) ≥ 0
Vi (t + 1) = sgn ( Hi (t) ) = 
−1 otherwise
where,
n
Hi (t ) = ∑ Wj , i Vj (t ) − Ti
j =1
Here, Vi (t + 1) represents the value of the function i.e. state value at node i at time (t +1)
(which is the next time instant).
Energy function: The model also associates an energy function which is the quadratic
form V T (t )WV (t ) (neglecting the threshold value without loss of generality) where V(t)
stands for the column matrix that represents the vector corresponding to the state of all
neurons at time instant t. This vector will lie on the hypercube whose order is that of the
synaptic weight matrix.
Modes of operation: The Hopfield model can operate in one of the two modes, serial or
fully parallel mode or a combination of these. Serial mode is the one in which the next state
computation, i.e., the evaluation of the neural network takes place at each node (node after
node) for every time instant. In the fully parallel mode the evaluation takes place for every
node at each time instant. A combination implies that the evaluation occurs at a group of
nodes for every time instant.
A stable state is defined as a state such that after reaching it, the network output does
not change i.e., V(t) = sgn(WV(t)).
The model results in the following convergence theorems:
Theorem 1: If the neural network is operating in the serial mode and the elements on the
diagonal of connection matrix are non-negative, the network will converge to a stable
state i.e., there are no cycles in the state space.
Theorem 2 : If the network is operating in the fully parallel mode, the network will either
converge to a stable state or to a cycle of length two i.e., it oscillates between two states in
the state space.
Goals: The goals of this chapter are to consider the possibilities of implementing a complex
valued associative memory and observe the behavior of the model in the serial and the
fully parallel modes.
Remark
Recently the concept of a complex valued neural network has been explored since
the work of [ZURADA 1996] and has been almost successfully applied to the fields
of image processing and pattern recognition. A conglomeration of the papers on
the subject has been briefly collected in [HIROSE 2003]. Following this literature
our work is based on implementation of a newer method to realize a complex valued
neural network.
The chapter is organized into three parts. The first part of section 2 discusses the features
of the model the authors are proposing. Also implications to convergence of the network
are briefly pointed out. The second part of the same section provides a proof technique
used for arguing the convergence properties of the discussed form of the complex valued
associative memory. The third part actually presents the proof of convergence and considers
how it is similar to real valued Hopfield associative memory.
6.2 FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

The model that we are about to propose considers a case where the neuron output is complex
valued and lies on the complex hypercube. A vector of size n on the complex hypercube
has each entry element belonging to the set {1 + j , 1– j , – 1 + j , -1 – j}.Thus, the state vector
also lies on the complex hypercube. This is, in many ways similar to the Hopfield model.
Complex Valued Neural Associative Memory on the Complex Hypercube 97
The Synaptic weights are complex-valued and the weight matrix is Hermitian unlike the
real valued case, where it is symmetric. The next state V(t+1) can be computed as,
V(t+1) = sgn (real part (WV(t))) + jsgn (complex part (WV(t))) (6.1)
Thus the values of the entities in the column vector V(t+1) anytime would be confining to
the set {1+J, 1–j, –1+j, –1–j} unlike the real case wherein the values confine only to the set
{1, –1}. Thus the total number of values V(t+1) would take, i.e., the number of points of the
“Complex hypercube” would equal 4n where n is the order of the neural network.
The energy function would thus be E(t) = (VT(t))* WV(t) (neglecting the threshold value
without loss of generality). The authors would like to prove that an important property of
this model would be to converge to a stable state when operating in the serial mode and
utmost to a cycle of length 2 when operating in the fully parallel mode.
The proof technique adopted by the authors is method of isolating the real and imaginary
parts of the Hermitian synaptic weight matrix and evaluating them separately. As one can
see when the Hermitian matrix is isolated into two parts real and imaginary, the matrix
corresponding the real part would be a real symmetric one and that corresponding the
imaginary part would be a real anti-symmetric one.
Remark
It is an interesting observation that the energy function when evaluated for the real part
with the complex valued vector would behave exactly as if it were a matrix being
evaluated for the real valued neural network proposed in [HOPFIELD].That is, we have
complex valued associative memory with a real connection matrix. The exact details of
the proof follow.
6.3 CONVERGENCE THEOREMS
Convergence Issues in Different Modes of Operation

Before delving into the proof we summarize convergence issues.
1. Given a neural network N = [W,T] with the synaptic weights in the weight matrix
being complex and the matrix itself being Hermitian and the calculation of the
algebraic threshold function generating a complex number, the network always
converges to a stable state when operating in the serial mode.
2. The same network when operating in the parallel mode either converges to a
stable state or to a cycle of length (maximum) two.
Generalized proof of convergence of an arbitrary neural net in the serial mode.
From the proof technique discussed in section (II) the proof follows.
Ek (t) is the evaluation of the energy function value at node k at time instant t.
 V1 (t ) 
 
 W11 " W1 n   # 
  
Ek (t ) = (V (t)" Vk (t ) " V (t ) )
1
* *
n
*
 # O #   Vk (t ) 
W
 n1 " W nn   # 
 
 Vn (t ) 
If we break the expression for Ek (t) into two parts, EkR(t) and Ek i(t), the real and imaginary
parts (of energy function), they come out like this:
 V1 (t ) 
 
 W11R " W1nR   # 
   V (t ) 
(
EkR ( t ) = V1 (t)"Vk (t) "Vn (t)
* * *
)  #
W
" # 

 k 
 # 
(6.2)
 1nR " WnnR 
 V (t ) 
 n 
 V1 (t ) 
 
 0 " jW1nI   # 
   V (t ) 
EkI (t ) = (V1 (t )"Vk (t ) "Vn (t ) ) 
* * * # " #   k 
 − jW " 0   # 

 V (t ) 
1nI
 n 
Evaluating the real part of (6.1) for the energy function, we have,
k −1  k −1 n
∑V i
*
( t ) ∑ WijRVj ( t ) + WikRVk ( t ) + ∑W
Vj ( t ) + ijR
i=0  j =1 j= k +1 
 k − 1 n 
Ek (t ) = Vk * (t )  ∑ WkjRVj ( t ) + WkkRVk ( t ) + ∑ WkjRVj ( t ) +
 j=1 j= k +1 
n  k −1 n 
∑ Vi * (t ) ∑ WijRVj (t ) + WikRVk ( t ) + ∑ WijRVj ( t )
i =k +1  j =1 j =k +1 
Similarly,
 V1 (t ) 
 
 W11R " W1nR   # 
 
EkR (t + 1) = (V1 (t )" Vk (t + 1)"Vn (t ))  # #  Vk (t + 1) 
* * *
O (6.3)
W  
 n1 R " WnnR   # 
 V (t ) 
 n 
The expression for Ek R(t+1) results because it is operating in the serial mode and the
updating of the function value takes place at only one node, i.e., the node at which we are
evaluating(Vk ). In the parallel mode, however, all the function values in the vector will be
updated.
k −1  k −1 n 
∑ V i
*
( t )  ∑ W V
ijR j ( t ) + W V
ikR k ( t + 1 ) + ∑ WijRVj (t ) +
i=0  j =1 j= k +1 
 k − 1 n 
Vk * (t + 1)  ∑ WkjRVj (t ) + WkkRVk ( t + 1) + ∑ WkjRVj ( t ) +
EkR ( t + 1)  j =1 j =k +1 
=
n  k −1 n 
∑ Vi * (t ) ∑ WijRVj (t ) + WikRVk ( t + 1) + ∑ WijRVj (t )
i =k +1  j =1 j =k +1 
WkkR (Vk* ( t + 1)Vk (t + 1) − Vk* ( t )Vk ( t )) +

∆EkR ( t ) = n n
∑
j = 1( j≠ k )
(
WkjR Vk* ( t + 1)Vj (t ) − Vk* (t )Vj (t ) + ) ∑ j = 1( j≠k )
(
WjkR Vk (t + 1)Vj* ( t ) − Vk (t )Vj* (t ) )
But since the real part of both matrices are symmetric, WkjR = WjkR ;
Thus,
WkkR (Vk* (t + 1)Vk (t + 1) − Vk* (t )Vk (t )) +

∆EkR ( t ) = n
∑ (
WkjR Vk* ( t + 1)Vj ( t ) − Vk* ( t )Vj ( t ) + Vk (t + 1)Vj* ( t ) − Vk ( t )Vj* ( t ) )
j = 1( j≠ k )
(
WkkR (VkR2 ( t + 1) + VkI2 (t + 1)) − (VkR2 (t ) + VkI2 (t )) + )
∆EkR ( t ) = n
∑
j = 1( j≠ k )
(
WkjR Vj ( t ) ∆Vk* ( t ) + Vj* (t ) ∆Vk (t ) )
(
WkkR ∆VkR (t ) (VkR (t + 1) + VkR (t )) + ∆VkI (t )(VkI (t + 1) + VkI (t )) + )
∆EkR ( t ) = n
∑
j = 1( j≠ k )
(
WkjR Vj (t ) ∆VkR ( t ) − jVj ( t ) ∆VkI ( t ) + Vj* ( t ) ∆VkR ( t ) + jVj* (t ) ∆VkI ( t ) )
Thus on cancellation of the corresponding imaginary parts
(
WkkR ∆VkR ( t ) (VkR (t + 1) + VkR ( t )) + ∆VkI (t )(VkI ( t + 1) + VkI (t )) + )
∆EkR (t ) = n
∑
j = 1( j≠ k )
( )
2WkjR VjR (t ) ∆VkR (t ) + VjI (t ) ∆VkI (t )
On adding and subtracting the following term,

WkkR ∆VkR ( t )VkR (t ) + WkkR ∆VkI (t )VkI (t )
we get,
 n 
2  WkkRVkR ( t ) + ∑ WkjRVjR (t )  ∆VkR ( t ) + WkkR ∆VkR2 ( t ) +
 
 j =1( j ≠k ) 
∆EkR (t ) = (6.4)
 n 
2  WkkRVkI (t ) + ∑ WkjRVjI (t )  ∆VkI (t ) + WkkR ∆VkI2 (t )
 
 j =1( j≠ k ) 
 n   n 
If we consider that  W k k RVkR (t ) + ∑ W k jRVjR (t )  and  W k k RVk R (t ) + ∑ W k jRV jR (t ) 
 j =1( j ≠k )   j =1( j ≠k ) 
are expressions for H k (t) in the real mode with some arbitrary VjR (t) and VjI (t), then from
the Hopfield convergence theorem, it is proved from the expression for
∆E = 2 Hk ∆Vk2 (t) + Wkk ∆Vk2 (t) , that it is a value that eventually goes to zero which means
that Ek (t) is not which is the local maxima. Hence ∆EkR (t) in complex case also reaches zero
hence Ek (t) is also not-to a local maxima.
Thus it remains to evaluate the imaginary part contribution of energy function i.e.
 V1 ( t ) 
 
 0 " W1nI   # 
 
EkI (t ) = (V1 ( t )"Vk (t )"Vn ( t ))  #
* * *
O #   Vk ( t ) 
 −W  
 1 nI " 0   # 
 
 Vn (t ) 
k −1   k −1 n 
∑  V (t ) ∑
i
*
jWijI Vj (t ) + jWikIVk (t ) + ∑ jWijIVj (t )   +

i =1   j =1( i ≠ j ) j = k + 1( i ≠ j ) 
 k −1 n 
EkI (t ) = Vk (t ) ∑ jWijIVj (t ) + ∑ jWijI Vj (t )  +
*
 j =1 j = k +1 
n   k −1 n 
∑  Vi (t )  ∑ jWijI Vj (t ) + jWikIVk (t ) + ∑ jWijIVj (t )  

*

i =k +1   j =1(i ≠ j ) j = k + 1( i ≠ j ) 
and similarly,
 V1 (t ) 
 
 0 " jW1nI   # 
 
EkI ( t + 1) = (V1 (t )"Vk ( t + 1)"Vn ( t ))  #
* * *
" #   Vk (t + 1) 
  
 − jW1nI " 0   # 
 
 Vn (t ) 
k −1   k −1 n 
∑  V i
*
(t ) ∑ jWijI Vj (t ) + jWikIVk (t + 1) + ∑ jWijI Vj (t )   +

i =1   j =1( i ≠ j ) j = k + 1( i ≠ j ) 
 k −1 n 
EkI ( t + 1) = ∆ Vk * (t + 1) ∑ jWijIVj (t ) + ∑ jWijI Vj (t )  +
 j =1 
 j = k +1 
n   k −1 n 
∑  Vi (t ) ∑ jWijI Vj (t ) + jWikIVk (t + 1) + ∑ jWijI Vj (t )  
*
i =k +1   j =1(i ≠ j ) j = k + 1( i ≠ j ) 
Now since Wij = −Wji ,

n
∆EkI (t ) = 2 ∑ (W
j =1( j ≠ k )
kjI ) (
VjR ( t ) ∆VkI − WkjI VjI (t ) ∆VkR  ) (6.5)
Thus,
 2 ( HkA ) ∆VkR ( t ) + WkkR ∆VkR2 (t ) +  n

∆Ek (t) =   + 2 ∑  WkjI VjR (t ) ∆VkI − WkjI VjI ( t ) ∆VkR ( ) ( )
 2 ( HkB ) ∆VkI (t ) + WkkR ∆VkI (t ) 
2
j =1( j ≠ k )
(6.6)
This is the expression for ∆Ek (t) in the complex valued neural network.
As one can observe from the above expression, the first term is zero when the neural
net converges to a stable state(from [BRUCK 1987]). The second term is real but may take
negative values depending on the imaginary parts of the corresponding entities of the
weight matrix. But when the first term becomes zero, i.e., when the net converges to a
stable state, ∆VkI will be zero. Hence the second term will be zero at the stable state. Which
means that the energy function of a complex valued neural net converges to a positive
value. This also proves that the complex valued associative memory constrained with a
real connection matrix converges to a stable state with a behavior that matches the real
valued neural net described by Hopfield.
Graphs of convergence of the energy function to a stable value and that of the entity
∆E to zero are depicted below. The relative performance as well as the analogous
relationship of that of three cases depicted (i) complex synaptic weight matrix and complex
vector, (ii) convergence for real valued neural network and (iii) an intermediary of these
two, i.e., a test with complex vectors on a real valued synaptic weight matrix is shown.
Convergence of Energy function
800
700 Complex weights

Complex vector
600
500
Energy function value E
Real weights
complex vectors
400
300
200
Real weights real
vectors
100
-100
-200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
time t
Convergence of Difference of energy to zero

300
Complex weights
Complex vector
250
Real weights
200 complex vectors
Energy difference
150
100
Real weights
50 real vectors
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
time t
Thus as we see from the figures above, in the first graph the energy function value is
the greatest for the case where weights are complex and the vectors are also complex. That
is because the complex part of the weight matrix is non-zero and contribute to the energy
value. Next comes the case where weights are real but the vectors are complex. In this case,
though there will be no complex part of the weights contributing, the complex part of the
vectors contribute to this increase in the energy value from the original Hopfield case
which in turn has the least local optima of convergence.
It is customary and mandatory to prove that this analogue between the complex and
the real cases of Hopfield associative memory in the serial mode can also be extended to
work in the fully parallel mode. It has been observed however, that a separate proof is not
required to illustrate the behavior of the model in the fully parallel mode. The same proof
can be extended in a certain manner shown by the work of [BRUCK 1987].
Before going into the extension needed, let the general form of the expression for the
fully parallel mode be observed first.
 V1 (t + 1) 
 
 W11R " W1nR   # 
 
EkR ( t + 1) = (V1 (t + 1)"Vk (t + 1)"Vn (t + 1)) # #  Vk (t + 1) 
* * *
"
W  
 n 1R " WnnR  # 
 
 Vn (t + 1) 
 V1 (t + 1) 
 
 W11I " W1nI   # 
 
EkI (t + 1) = (V1 (t + 1)"Vk (t + 1)"Vn (t + 1))  # #   Vk (t + 1) 
* * *
"
W  
 n 1I " WnnI   # 
 
 Vn (t + 1) 
These expressions change because the computation of the function is done at every
node of the neural net at a certain time instant.
Instead of evaluating the above expressions, an easier method is to define a special
neural net N’ such that,
N′ = [W ‘, T ‘]
 0 W
where W′ =  W 0 
 
T 
and T′ =  T 
 
As it can be seen from the above matrix N’, it defines a newer neural net which
corresponds to a bipartite graph with 2n nodes. Let the subsets of nodes be P1 and P2
which are independent sets of nodes.
It has been proved beyond doubt in previous work that
1. for any serial mode of operation in N there exists a serial mode of operation in
N’ provided W has a non-negative diagonal.
2. there exists a serial mode of operation in N’ which is equivalent to a fully parallel
mode of operation in N.
This can be seen because if N is operating in a fully parallel mode, since P1 and P2
correspond to independent sets of nodes, it would be equivalent to evaluating one node at
a time in N’ which is nothing but the serial mode.
Now, since N’ is operating in a serial mode, when N’ reaches a stable state one of the
following things happen.
1. The current state of operation of both the partitions P1 and P2 that correspond to
N’ may be the same which means that both P1 and P2 converge to a stable state.
2. The current state of operation of both P1 and P2 are distinct which implies N
will oscillate between the two states at which P1 and P2 are existing currently,
thus converging to a cycle of length two.
The graphs which depict the operation in the parallel mode are shown below.
Parallel mode convergence of a complex valued neural network

250
200
150
Energy function E
100
50
-50
-100
-150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Time t
Oscillation of the difference in energies between two

consecutive states as the energy oscillates
250 +
+
200
150
Energy difference Delta E
100
+ + +
50
-50
+ + +
-100
+
-150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Time t
The above graphs depict the oscillation of the value of the energy function for a peculiar
case and that of the value of ∆E as it oscillates about zero.
6.4 CONCLUSIONS
From the above discussion one can observe that the evaluation of the signum function at
each node and thereby determining the vector that originates for the next instant makes
the complex valued neural network similar in behavior to the real valued one. However
the designs of neural networks( [ZURADA 1996],[ZURADA 2003] and [HIROSE 2003])
proposed so far have not seen the plausibility of the implementation of the above mentioned
method of performing the complex signum function. Since the application of the function
proves that the network converges just as the real valued one, it can be conveniently applied
to applications such as image processing and pattern recognition.
REFERENCES
[1]. [HOPFIELD 1982] J.J. Hopfield and D.W. Tank “Neural Computations of Decisions in
Optimization Problems” in Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA , Vol. 79., pp. 2554-2558, 1982.
[2]. [BRUCK 1987] Jehoshua Bruck and Joseph W.Goodman “A Generalized Convergence Theorem
for Neural Networks”. IEEE First Conference on Neural Networks, San Diego, CA June 1987.
[3]. [ZURADA 1996] Stainslaw Jankowski, Andrzej Lozowski and Jacek M.Zurada,
“Complex-valued Multistate Neural Associative Memory”. IEEE Transactions on Neural
Networks. Vol. 7, No 6, November 1996.
[4]. [ZURADA 2003] Mehemet kerem Muezzinoglu, Student member IEEE, Cuneyt Guzelis
and Zacek.M.Zurada, Fellow IEEE “A New Design Method for the Complex-valued Multistate
Hopfield Associative Memory”. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks Vol. 14. No. 4, July
2003.
[5]. [HIROSE 2003] Akira Hirose. “Complex Valued Neural Networks: Theories and
Applications”. World Scientific Publishing Co, November 2003.
[6]. G. Rama Murthy and D. Praveen, “Complex valued Neural Associative Memory on the
Complex Hypercube,” Proceedings of 2004 IEEE Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent
Systems (CIS 2004).
Optimal Binary Filters: Neural Networks 107
CHAPTER
7
Optimal Binary Filters:
Neural Networks
7.1 INTRODUCTION
In the case of many artificial/natural linear/non-linear systems/channels the output signal

is corrupted by noise. A natural important practical/theoretical problem is filtering. Thus it
is also desirable to design an optimal filter. In many traditional approaches, the criterion of
optimality is the minimization of mean square error between actual output and estimated
output. Based on this criteria Wiener formulated the problem and discovered the optimal
filter. This filter is derived based on transfer function description. Kalman formulated the
problem based on state space description of linear system and in his case the filter is recursive.
Independent of the research in system theory, Shannon formalized information theory
by formulating the notion of block codes for noisy communication channels. The relationship
between system theory approach and coding theory approach was seriously investigated
by few researchers. In [2] the problem of optimal signal design for linear system/channels
was formulated and solved. It is shown in this chapter that investigating the relationship
between system theory approach and coding theory approach leads to the formulation
and solution of a new optimal filtering problem.
In section 2 an optimal signal design problem is formulated and solved which then
forms the basis of the optimal filtering problem and its solution which is discussed in
section 3. Finally the section 4 concludes the chapter.
7.2 OPTIMAL SIGNAL DESIGN PROBLEM: SOLUTION
Our essential goal is to formulate and solve an optimal filtering problem. But the problem
is related to optimal signal design problem, which is formulated and solved in the following.
The signal design problem is an open research problem formulated by A.Wyner, in
continuous time [8].
7.2.1 Problem statement

Find an admissible sequence of input signals (possibly vectors) u k , k = 0, 1, 2,..., k f –1 i.e, ith
i
component of which (vector) is bounded in amplitude by one i.e. uk ≤ 1, in order to
k −1
−1
f
minimize the criterion J = ∑

2 k =0
XkT CT CXk
subject to
X k +1 = AX k + Buk , X (0) = 0
Yk = CX k
Here A is n × n matrix, B is n × p matrix, C is an m × n matrix. Single input, single output
(SISO) as well as multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) channels are considered. Let the m ×
p impulse response matrix [6] be denoted by h(.).
7.2.2 Solution
The optimal control vectors which maximize the total output energy of a linear discrete
time filter over a finite horizon [0, k f ] are given by
 
*
u k = sign  ∑R kj u j 
 j 
k f − k −1
where Rkj = ∑
i = max{1, j − k −1}
 hT (i + 1)h(k + i + 1 − j ) and u * is the optimal choice. The condition
k
provided above provides a necessary condition on the optimum input signal/control. The
stable states of a neural network constitute the local optimum control vector. The global
optimum stable state provides the global optimum control vector [2].
Proof : Discrete Maximal Principle well known in literature is utilized to provide the
solution. Consider a one-dimensional linear dynamical system. Its state space description
is given by
X(k +1)= A(k) X(k) + B(k)u(k),
X(0)=X 0 (7.1)
Y(k)=C(k) X(k) + D(k) u(k);
Here, D(k) ≡ 0 for all' k ' (7.2)

It should be noted that we are purposefully considering a linear time varying system.
In the above state space description of the linear system, A(k ) is an ‘n × n’ matrix (a second
order tensor) and X(k ) is the state vector (first order tensor) i.e. an ‘n × 1’ vector. C(k ) is an
‘m × n’ matrix, B(k ) is an ‘n × p ’ matrix.
In the case of certain multidimensional linear systems as well as infinite dimensional
linear systems, the state transition tensor [7], the state tensor, the input tensor [5], the
output tensor are of compatible dimension as well as order. The discrete time dynamical
system evolution (linear or non-linear) is described through tensors [7]. The inner product
between the linear operators is carried out with the standard method. To restrict oneself
to the problem considered in the present chapter, we return to the one-dimensional system
keeping in mind that the authors already made the extension to multi/infinite
dimensional systems [7].
i
The input sequence satisfies the constraints of the following form i.e. uk ≤ 1 , where u ki
is the ith component of the input vector. Thus, U k ∈ V , a subset of Rr.
The cost function J is given below. The problem considered is to find an admissible
sequence uˆ k , k = 0,1,..., k f − 1 subject to the constraints and also minimizing the objective
function J.
k −1
−1
f
1 T T
J=
2 k =0
∑
 X kT CT (k )C(k )X k  − Xk f C ( k f )C( k f )Xk f
2
(7.3)
Let uk , k = 0,1,..., k f − 1 be an optimal sequence, and let xk , k = 0,1,..., k f be the state

response of (7.1) uniquely specified by u. Then, under reasonable assumptions, there exists
a non-trivial function satisfying
∂H( xk , uk , λk , k )
λk = (7.4)
∂xk
where, the Hamiltonian is given by
−1 T T
H (x k , uk , λk +1 , k ) =  Xk C ( k )C( k )Xk  +λ T [ A( k )X + B(k )u ] (7.5)
2  k +1 k k
as in most textbooks [9].

Thus, the adjoint vector equation is given by
λk = −CT (k )C(k )Xk + AT (k )λk +1 (7.6)
Since, the terminal state is unspecified, we have
λ (k f ) = −C T (k f )C( k f )X (k f ) (7.7)
This will provide the terminal condition for solving (7.6). Since the input is constrained
it must necessarily satisfy
H (xˆ k , uˆ k , λˆk +1 , k ) = min ( H (xk , v , λk +1 , k )) (7.8)

v∈V
for all k = 0,1, 2, …. k f −1

T
Thus, uk* = − S ign {B ( k )λk + 1 } (7.9)
In most textbooks [6] and references for optimal control /signal design (7.9) is derived
as a necessary condition. We make the following detailed derivation, to expose the structure
of optimal control and its relationship to stable states of a neural network.
Solving (7.6) for λ k +1 and substituting in (7.9) we arrive at the optimal control sequence.
It is immediate to see that if v is a convex polytope, then we have a mathematical
programming problem. Our chief contribution is the following derivation.
With the terminal state specified, the equation (7.6) is recursed backwards to arrive at
the optimal vector (optimal control tensor in the multi–dimensional case). Thus, an efficient
computational form for solving the two-point boundary value problem [9] is derived in
the following.
It should be noted that, we derived the expression for λ k+1 .in the case of linear time
varying dynamical system.
λk = −CT (k)Y(k ) + AT (k )λk +1 with λ (k ) = −C T ( k )Y( k ) (7.10)

f f f
Starting with the terminal condition, recursing backwards
λk f −1 = −C T ( k f − 1)C( k f − 1)X ( k f − 1)
− AT ( k f − 1)CT ( k f )C( k f )X( k f )

T
= −C ( k f − 1)Y (k f − 1)
− AT ( k f − 1)CT ( k f )Y( k f )
λk f −2 = −C T ( k f − 2)C( k f − 2)X (k f − 2)
− AT (k f − 2)C T (k f − 1)Y (k f − 1)
− AT ( k f − 2) AT ( k f − 1)C T ( k f )Y( k f )
λk f −3 = −CT ( k f − 3)Y( k f − 3)
− AT ( k f − 3)CT ( k f − 2)Y( k f − 2)
− AT ( k f − 3) AT ( k f − 2)C T ( k f − 1)Y( k f − 1)
− AT ( k f − 3) AT ( k f − 2) AT ( k f − 1)CT ( k f )Y( k f )
Thus continuing the pattern downwards, we have for the linear time invariant filters
λk f −l = −CT Y( k f − l) − AT CT Y( k f − l + 1)
− ( AT )2 C T Y ( k f − l + 2)
− ( AT )3 C T Y ( k f − l + 3) ...
−( AT )l C T Y ( k f ) (7.11)
Let l = k f − k − 1; this implies k f − l = k + 1

Hence
λk +1 = −CT Y(k + 1) − AT CT Y(k + 2)
−( AT )2 CT Y(k + 3) ...
k f − k+l
−( AT ) C T Y( k + l + 1) (7.12)
Thus, we have for the linear time invariant filters
*  l 
 i =0
∑
uk = Sign  BT ( AT )i C T Y ( k + i + 1) 

(7.13)
where, l = k f − k − 1 . Using the expression for impulse response h.
*  l 
 i =0
∑
i.e. uk = Sign  h T (i + 1)Y ( k + i + 1) 

(7.14)
The term in the parentheses is given by,

l l k + i +1
∑h
i =0
T
(i + 1)Y( k + i + 1) = ∑ hT (i + 1) ∑ h (k + i + 1 − j)u ( j) (7.15)
i =0 j =0
Exchanging the order of summation, with the help of grid, in Figure 7.1 we have
 k f k f −k −1 
uk* = Sign  ∑ ∑ [h T (i + 1) h (k + i + 1 − j )] u ( j )
 j =0 i = max ( 1, j − k −1) 
kf
k+1
0, 0 1 2 kf – k – 1
Fig. 7.1 Order of summation

Writing the expression
 k f k f − k −1 
uk* = Sign  ∑ ∑ [h T (i + 1)h (k + i + 1 − j )]u ( j ) (7.16)
 j =0 i =max{1, j − k −1} 
Let us define
k f − k −1
Rkj = ∑
i = max{1, j −k −1}
 hT (i + 1) h ( k + i + 1 − j ) (7.17)
Thus,
 k f 
uk* = Sign ∑ Rk ju ( j ) (7.18)
 j =0 
In the case of linear time varying systems, the above derivation still applies, as is easily
seen above. It is easy to see that we have an expression of the following form for the
optimal control vector over finite horizon of a time varying linear system.
uk* = Sign {∑ S }
kj u( j )
where, Skj is the energy density matrix of time varying linear system. This can be stated as
a theorem. The authors derived similar results for multidimensional and infinite
dimensional systems[2].
7.3 OPTIMAL FILTER DESIGN PROBLEM: SOLUTION (DUAL OF SIGNAL

DESIGN PROBLEM)
The optimal filter problem is formulated below. For simplicity we consider a single input,
single output linear filter/channel/system. It is easily seen that extension to multi input,
multi output systems follows in a straightforward manner. It is discussed how the solution
of optimal signal design problem also leads to a solution to this problem.
7.3.1 Problem statement

Find an admissible sequence of impulse response values h k , k = 0, 1, 2,..., k f –1, which are
bounded in amplitude by one i.e. hk ≤ 1, in order to minimize the criterion.
k f −1
−1
J =
2
∑X T T
k C CX k subject to
X k +1 = AX k + Buk , X (0) = 0
Yk = CX k
where A is n x n matrix , B is n x 1 matrix, C is an 1 × n matrix. Let the impulse response at
time ‘k’ be denoted by h(k ).
That is, find a bounded support ,bounded magnitude impulse response values such that total
output energy over a finite horizon is maximized. The input is unconstrained.
7.3.2 Solution
Since convolution is a commutative operator, as far as the output of linear filter is concerned,
the roles of input and impulse response can be exchanged.
y ( n ) = u ( n ) * h ( n) = h ( n ) * u ( n )
The input and impulse response have a dual role in determining output. Maximizing
output subject to bounded extent, bounded support input is equivalent to maximizing
output subject to bounded extent, bounded support impulse response. The optimal input
vector is given as the stable state of a neural network [3]. Thus optimal input signals
constitute a linear code [1], [4].
The optimal set of impulse responses constitutes stable states of a neural network whose
connection matrix is the input energy density matrix. The components of optimal impulse
response vector assume binary values. They constitute a linear code. The linear filtering
operation reduces to the “binary filtering” operation. The optimal binary filters are related
to optimal codes matched to input. The derivation follows by replacing the “input” by
“impulse response” finite in extent and finite in support. The derivation involves duplication
effort required with the derivation of “optimal input”. Thus, linear filtering involves
weighting the input values in the window by binary values. It is shown in [3] that the logic
functions in multidimensions also constitute the stable states of an m-d neural network.
Known impulse response

of linear channel over
finite horizon
Determine the
connection matrix of
neural network (energy
density matrix)
Determine the
local/global optimum
input signal, i.e., the
stable state of neural
network by running it in
serial mode
Fig. 7.2 Optimal signal design approach
Known input signal over a

finite horizon
Construct the input energy

density matrix, the
connection matrix of a
neural network
Run the above neural

network in serial mode to
compute the local/global
optimum impulse response
Fig. 7.3 Optimal filter design approach
7.4 CONCLUSIONS
In the above discussion, a realistic/ practical optimal filtering problem is formulated. It is

shown that this filtering problem is related to an optimal control problem [6]. By solving
the optimal control/ signal design problem, it is shown that the global optimum impulse
response constitutes the stable state of a Hopfield neural network.
REFERENCES
* Journal:
[1] Jehoshua Bruck, Mario Blaum, “Neural Networks, Error – Correcting Codes, and Polynomials
over the Binary n- Cube“, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 35, No. 5, September
1989.
* Conference Proceedings:
[2] G. Rama Murthy, “Optimal Control, Codeword, Logic Function Tensors: Multidimensional
Neural Networks,” International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (IJSCI),
October 2006, pages 9-17.
[3] G. Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Neural Networks, Multi/Infinite Dimensional
Logic theory,” International Journal of Neural Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 223-235, 2005.
[4] G. Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Coding Theory: Multi/Infinite Dimensional
Neural Networks: Constrained Static Optimization,” Proceedings of IEEE Information Theory
Workshop, October 2002.
* Books:
[5] A.I. Borisenko and I. E. Tarapov, “Vector and Tensor Analysis with Applications“, Dover
[6] M. Gopal, “Modern Control System Theory“, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
[7] G. Rama Murthy, “Tensor State Space Representation: Multidimensional Systems”, International
Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (IJSCI), January 2007, pp.16-23
[8] B. Gopinath, T.Cover , “Open Problems in Control and Communication and Computation.”,
Springer, Hiedelberg, 1987.
[9] A.E. Bryson and Y.C. Ho, “Applied Optimal Control: Optimization, Estimation and Control”,
Taylor and Francis Inc. 1995.
This page
intentionally left
blank
CHAPTER
8
Linear Filter Model of a
Synapse: Associated Novel
Real/Comple
eal/Complex xValued Neural
Valued
Networks
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Artificial neural networks are innovated to provide models of biological neural networks.
The currently available models of neurons are utilized to build single layer ( e.g. single
layer perceptron ) as well as multi-layer neural networks (e.g. multi-layer perceptron).
These neural networks were utilized successfully in several applications. Also various
paradigms of neural networks such as radial basis functions, self-organizing memory are
innovated and utilized in applications.
In the case of conventional real valued neural networks, the inputs, outputs belong
to the Euclidean space (Rn or Rm ). In these neural networks, a synapse is represented/
modeled by a single synaptic weight which is lumped at one point. These synaptic weights
are updated in the training phase using one of the learning laws ( for example, Perceptron
learning law, gradient rule etc). In the case of supervised training, these learning laws
enable one to classify the input patterns into finitely many classes (based on the training
samples).
Motivation for a Better Model of Neurons:

• By reflecting on modeling biological neurons, we are naturally led to making the realistic
assumption that synapses constitute distributed elements rather than lumped elements.
Thus, a realistic model of a synapse is a linear system (characterized by impulse response)
while at the same time maintaining tractability.
• In conventional neuronal models, the input at each synapse is a constant and is
acted on by the scalar synaptic weight. But in biological neurons, it is most natural
to consider that the input signal samples are not scalar values, but are functions
defined over a finite support. The synapses (characterized by impulse response)
act on these input signals which are defined on the domain (restricted to a
support) [0,T]. Thus the class of input signals belong to a function space (defined
on [0,T]). For the sake of notational convenience, let the synaptic weight functions
be also defined on [0,T].
In summary, a continuous-time, real valued neuron has input signals (which are real valued
functions of time) defined over a finite support. The input signals are fed to synapses acting as
linear systems/filters and sum of responses is operated on by an activation function. Using this
model of a neuron, various feed-forward/recurrent networks of neurons are designed and studied.
This chapter is organized as follows. In section 2, continuous time perceptron model is
discussed. Also in this section, the continuous time perceptron learning law is discussed.
In section 3, abstract mathematical structure of neuronal models is discussed. In section 4,
neuronal model based on finite impulse response model of synapse is discussed. Also the
associated neural networks are proposed. In section 5, a novel continuous time associative
memory is proposed and the convergence theorem is discussed. In section 6, various
multidimensional neural network generalizations are discussed. In section 7, complex
valued neural networks based on the continuous time neuronal model are discussed. The
chapter concludes in section 8.
8.2 CONTINUOUS TIME PERCEPTRON AND GENERALIZATIONS
The area of artificial neural networks was pioneered by the efforts of McCulloch and Pitts
to provide a model of neuron. Soon, it was realized by Minsky et al. that such a model of
neuron has no training of the synaptic weights. Thus they proposed the model of single
perceptron as well as single layer of perceptrons. Further they provided the perceptron
learning law. This law was proved to converge when the input patterns are linearly
separable. Later it was shown that a Multi-Layer-Perceptron, a feed forward network can
be trained (using the back-propagation algorithm) to classify non-linearly separable
patterns. In the following (as discussed in the Introduction), we propose a more accurate
(biologically) model of neuron and use it to construct various artificial neural networks.
A New Mathematical Model of Neuron/Single Perceptron

Consider finitely many (say M) input signals which are defined on a bounded support [0,
T]. Let each of these signals be input to synapses which are characterized by synaptic
weight functions (that are defined on support [0, T] ). Since each of the synapses act as a linear
filter, the output of each synapse is a convolution of the input function with the synaptic weight
function. Mathematically, let a i(t), Wi(t) for 1≤ i ≤ M be the input functions , synaptic weight
functions respectively. Let the signum function be the activation function of the neuron.
Thus the output of the neuron is given by
M 
y(t) = Sign  ∑
 i =1
ai (t ) ⊗ Wi (t ) − T 

(8.1)
Linear Filter Model of a Synapse: Associated Novel Real/Complex Valued Neural Networks 119
where ⊗ denotes the convolution operation between two time functions (and T is the threshold
at the neuron. Without loss of generality, T can be assumed to be zero ). More explicitly,
(8.2)
 M T
 
y(t) = Sign  
 ∑∫ ai (τ ) Wi (t − τ ) dτ  − T 
 
  i =1 0  
The successive input functions are defined over the interval [0,T]. They are fed as inputs to
the continuous time neurons at successive SLOTS.
M 
y(t) = sign  ∑ ai (t ) ⊗ w i (t )
 i =1 
a1 (t)
w1 (t)
w2(t)
a2 (t)
. wm(t)
.
.
am (t)
Fig. 8.1 A novel model of continuous time neuron

(In the figure ⊗ denotes the convolution operator)
Continuous Time Perceptron Learning Law:

Proof: As in the case of “conventional perceptron”, a continuous time perceptron learning
law is given by:
Wi( n+1) (t) = Wi(n ) (t) + η ( S(t ) − g(t) ) ai (t) (8.3)
where S(t) is the target output for the current training example, g(t) is the output generated
by the perceptron andη is a positive constant called the learning rate.
Proof: In this model of continuous time perceptron, the weights are functions of time defined
on the interval [0, T]. Thus, since the synaptic weights are functions of time, we are led to
investigating the type of convergence: (i) Pointwise or (ii) Uniform.
Suppose we fix the time point, t. The convergence of synaptic weights in (8.3) is assured
by the proof of convergence in the case of conventional perceptron. Since, the choice of
time point is arbitrary, we are assured of pointwise convergence of synaptic weights based
on training sample input functions.
It is interesting to know under what conditions, the sequence of synaptic weight
functions converge UNIFORMLY. Q.E.D.
Continuous Time Multi-Layer-Perceptron:

Using the above approach to model a neuron, it is straightforward to arrive at a multi-
layer feed forward network. In such a multi-layer perceptron, the activation function at each
neuron is changed from being a signum function to a sigmoid function i.e.
1
y(t) = , (8.4)
1 + e − z(t )
where y(t) is the output of neuron,
M
z(t) = ∑ a (t) ⊗ W (t)
j =1
i i ( ⊗ ..convolution operator) (8.5)
The generalization of back propagation algorithm (based on conventional model of neuron)

follows essentially in a one-to-one manner. The details are avoided for brevity. Also various
recurrent networks based on the continuous-time neuron can be designed and implemented.
It is possible to consider a model of neuron in which the input functions are defined
over the function space [0, ∞ ]. It is possible to consider neural networks based on such
inputs. The inputs are divided into testing and training classes.
8.3 ABSTRACT MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE OF NEURONAL MODELS
Consider the inputs to a continuous-time neuron which are defined on a finite support
[0,T]. Let the impulse responses of synapses modeled as linear filters be defined on the
finite support [0,T]. Thus, the inputs as well as synaptic weight functions belong to the
function space defined over the finite support [0,T]. We answer the following question.
Q: Under reasonable assumptions, what is the mathematical structure of the function
space defined over [0,T] ?
Let F be the set (function space) on which the following operations are well defined:
Addition, Convolution (These operations are like addition, multiplication defined on the
sets: real numbers, complex numbers).
Lemma: Let the identically zero function be the additive identity element and Delta function
(δ (t ) = 1for t = 0 and δ (t ) = 0 for t ≠ 0 ) be the multiplicative identity. Then, the set F on
which addition, multiplication (of functions defined on [0,T]) operations are defined
constitutes a Ring.
Proof: Involves routine verification of axioms of the ring (closure under addition, convolution
operations between the members of F i.e. functions) and are avoided for brevity. Actually F
is “Close” to being a field except that “multiplicative inverse” does not always exist. Q.E.D.
Include such functions and convert F into field.
Now define a vector space, G over the field. The set of input functions incorporated
into a vector belongs to G. The usual ‘multiplication’ operation is replaced by ‘convolution’.
• Hyperplane: In the vector space defined above, a ‘hyperplane’ defined by a

‘vector’ (specified by synaptic weight functions { Wi (t ), 1 ≤ i ≤ M } is given by
M
∑ a (t)
i =1
i ⊗ Wi (t) = L(t) (8.5)
• Linear Separability: Consider the ‘field’, F of functions defined over [0,T].Let G

be the vector space defined over F. A class of functions is separable into two
classes, if there exists a hyperplane such that the two regions are defined by
M M
∑ ai (t) ⊗ Wi (t ) ≤ L(t ) and ∑ a (t)

i =1
i ⊗ Wi ( t) > L( t) (8.6)
i =1
Similarly, it is straightforward to define the class of functions which are classifiable

into “N” classes.
Fourier/LAPLACE Transform: Associated Field

It is well known that the Fourier/Laplace transform of the convolution of two functions, is
the product of Fourier/Laplace transforms of the individual functions. It is found that
processing the functions (by applying the activation function) has advantages in the
transform domain (Rama 5). In this subsection, we restrict attention to functions with
rational Fourier/Laplace transforms.
The function space being operated on by the activation function is now the field of
rational functions over [0,T]. Thus there is a natual mapping between the two fields
(associated with continuous time neuron). With the above discussion summarizing the
abstract mathematical structure of neuronal modeling (being considered), we arrive at the
following conclusions:
• Consider a single layer of continuous time perceptrons being trained by input
function samples. As long as the input samples are “linearly separable”, the set
of synaptic weight functions converge (to an equilibrium vector)
• Consider a continuous-time multi-layer perceptron being trained by input
function samples. The back propagation algorithm utilized to train synaptic
weight functions converges even when the input function samples are non-
linearly separable (provided there are sufficient number of continuous-time
neurons in the hidden layer).
8.4 FINITE IMPULSE RESPONSE MODEL OF SYNAPSES: NEURAL

NETWORKS
• So far we have considered continuous time neural networks in which the synaptic
weight function corresponds to an analog linear filter. A natural question arises
whether it is possible to conceive a synapse whose impulse response corresponds to that
of a digital filter i.e. a Finite Impulse Response Filter (FIR). In the following, we
consider neural network with such a model of synapse.
• Typically, let the discrete time input signals be considered over the finite horizon
[ 0, 1, 2, …, S]. For the sake of simplicity, let the length of all FIR filters modeling
the synapses be the same, say T (The generalization to the case where the FIR filters
have different lengths is straightforward). Thus the impulse response sequences
(associated with different synapses) extend over the duration {0,1,2,……….,}.
• The output of the synapse (described by an FIR filter) depends on the input signal
values over a finite horizon (depending on the length of the impulse response).
Typically the length of filter is smaller than the support of a distinct input sequence
i.e. T << S. It should be noted that the successive input sequences are of same length.
 M i 
y (n ) = Sign  ∑
 i =1
C ( n) ⊗ a i ( n) 

(8.7)
M T 
= Sign  ∑∑
 i =1 k = 0
C i (k ) a i (n − k ) 

Where C i(k) for k = 1, 2,...,T is the impulse response sequence of ith synapse and
a i (k ),... for k = 1, 2,..., S is the ith input sequence to the neuron.
• Thus the synaptic weight sequence values (impulse response of FIR filters) can
be trained according to the following perceptron learning law
( n)
Ci(n+1) (k ) = Ci ( k ) + η ( S( k ) − g( k )) a i(k ) (8.8)
where S(k ) is the target output for the current training example, g(k ) is the output generated
by the perceptron at time k and η is a positive constant called the learning rate.
This update rule converges when the input patterns are linearly separable. Using the
same model of neuron, a multi layer perceptron is trained using a modified version of
Back Propagation Algorithm.
It is possible to consider neuronal models in which the synapse acts as an Infinite
Impulse Response filter. Furthermore, based on such a model of neuron (synapse acting as
an FIR filter), it is possible to discuss a novel associative memory. Currently, the models of
neurons discussed (in section 2, section 4) are being compared with traditional models of
neurons [Rama5].
8.5 NOVEL CONTINUOUS TIME ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY
In addressing, the problem of signal design for magnetic/optical recording channels, Wyner
formulated an open research problem [GoC]. The problem statement is provided below.
Open Research Problem

Consider a single input, single output linear time invariant filter (SISO linear filter)
modeling a magnetic/optical recording channel. Let the class of inputs (to the linear filter)
defined on bounded support [0, T], be bounded in magnitude by unity (1). Determine the
optimal signals such that the total output over finite horizon is maximized.
T
∫ y (t)
2
dt ( where y(t) is the output of linear filter )
0
The author [Rama3] as well as Honig et al. [HoS] independently solved the problem.
The solution in [Rama3] is more general in the sense that we considered Multi-Input, Multi-
Output (MIMO) linear time varying filters and derived the optimal input vector. Let Y (t)
be an optimal input vector. Then it satisfies the following signed integral equation
T 
∫
Y (t) = Sign  R (t , u) Y(u) du 
0 
(8.9)
where R (t,u) is the energy density matrix of the multi-input, multi-output, Linear time
varying system. In the case of multi-input, multi-output, linear time invariant system, the
optimal input vector satisfies the following equation
T 
Y (t) = Sign

0
∫
 R (t − u) Y (u) du 


(8.10)
In the following paragraph, we consider a successive approximation procedure for

computing the optimal control vector starting with an arbitrary binary vector defined on
the support [0,T].
Consider a vector of binary valued functions Y ( n) (t) ( +1 or − 1valued) defined on the

finite support [0,T]. Let R(t) be the energy density matrix of a multi-input, multi-output
linear system representing the time varying synaptic weight matrix. The following
successive approximation scheme is used to compute the local optimum stable function
starting with a initial binary vector Y(0) (t).
T 
∫
(n)
Y (t) = Sign  R ( t − τ ) Y (τ ) d τ  •
( n +1)
(8.11)
 0 
From practical considerations, it is necessary to know whether the above successive
approximation scheme converges or not. This problem is converted into an equivalent
problem by discretizing the continuous time linear system into a discrete time system.
Such discretization can always be done for some types of systems (satisfying some regularity
conditions) without fear of approximating the system dynamics. The standard procedure
of discretizing a continuous time system is summarized in many textbooks including
Gopal’s book ( Gop., Pages 185-187),
With the discrete time system equivalent to the continuous time system, the argument
technique adopted for convergence is once again the energy function hill climbing in
successive iterations.
Theorem 8.1: Consider a Multi-Input, Multi-Output (MIMO), linear time-invariant
system described by the dynamics
i
X (t ) = A X (t ) + B Y (t )
Z(t) = C X (t) (8.12)
The discrete time simulation (of the above continuous time system) of the following form
X( k+1 ) = F X( k ) + G Y (k) (8.13)
Z( k ) = H X( k ) (8.14)
can always be done. The discrete simulation is almost exact except for the error introduced
by sampling the input and that caused by the iterative procedure for evaluating the matrices.
Proof: Follows from the procedure described in Gopal (Gop, pp.185-187 ). Q.E.D.
With such a discrete time system corresponding to a continuous time system, we have
the following recursion (successive approximation scheme):
Y (n +1) ( k ) = Sign {W Y( n) (k )} for n ≥ 0, (8.15)
Where Y(k ) is the optimal control vector associated with the discrete time linear system
(obtained by discretizing a continuous time system) and W is the energy density tensor
(associated with the discrete time system). Thus we have a Hopfield network with W as
the synaptic weight matrix. Hence starting with an initial vector Y (0) (k ) , the above recursion
converges to a stable state (local optimum vector) or at most a cycle of length 2 ( by invoking
the convergence theorem associated with Hopfield neural network whose Connection
matrix is W). Q.E.D.
Thus, the above approach converts the problem of determining the convergence of
scheme in (8.11), to that associated with a discrete time linear system. The iteration reminds
of L∞ version of Neumann Series. The energy function (Lyapunov function) optimized
over the state trajectory of continuous time linear system is a quadratic form [Rama1].
In [BrB], various possible generalized neural networks are discussed. These neural
networks are associated with an energy function which is a higher order form than a
quadratic form (associated with a Hopfield neural network). It is very natural to formalize
associative memories which are generalizations of those discussed in this chapter.
Several generalizations of the results are documented in the technical report [Rama5].
For instance, the complex valued, continuous time associative memory is discussed in
detail in the technical report [Rama5, RaP]. For such a complex valued associative memory,
a convergence theorem is stated and proved.
8.6 MULTIDIMENSIONAL GENERALIZATIONS
• In this chapter, so far, we have considered single/multi-layer continuous time

neural networks, whose input as well as output are vectors. It is straight
forward to generalize the results to the case where the input/output is a 3-
dimensional/multidimensional array [Rama1, Rama 2]. Tensor products are
utilized to determine the output of each neuron in the network. Such three/
multidimensional neural networks arise in the biological neural network in
human/animal brain.
• In the case of a human/animal brain, the associative memory operates on three
dimensional input patterns. Thus the state of the associative memory is not a
vector (one dimensional array) but a three dimensional array. An appropriate
model of such memory is a three dimensional, continuous time associative memory.
It is easy to see that the model described in section 5 can easily be generalized
along the lines of the work in [Rama 2].
8.7 GENERALIZATION TO COMPLEX VALUED NEURAL NETWORKS (CVNNs)

Activation Functions
Consider a complex valued, continuous time neuron whose inputs as well as synaptic
weight functions (defined on support [0, T] ) and thresholds are complex valued functions.
In such a model of neuron, it is possible to utilize various activation functions.
Let z(t) = ( c(t) + j d (t) ) be the net contribution (after convolving the input functions
with the synaptic weight functions) at a neuron. The following activation functions can be
utilized:
Activation Functions: (i) Complex Signum Function;
Sign ( c(t) + j d (t) ) = Sign ( c(t) ) + j Sign ( d (t) ).
With such an activation function, the continuous time perceptron convergence law
described in (8.3) for real values neurons is easily generalized to continuous time, complex
valued perceptrons.
In the case of conventional complex valued perceptron, it is well known that the
perceptron training law is easily generalized [AAV]. Using the similar proof technique, in
the case of complex valued, continuous time neurons, the convergence proof utilized by
Aizenberg et al. is generalized.
Also, in the case of conventional, complex valued neuron, the above activation function
is utilized in [RaP] for arriving at an associative memory.
(ii) Complex Sigmoid Function:

1
g(z(t)) = 1 + e − z(t ) or alternatively (8.16)
g(z(t)) = tanh ( z(t)) (8.17)

In the case of complex valued, continuous time multi-layer perceptron, we utilize the
above complex valued sigmoidal function as the activation function at each (complex
valued) neuron. With such a model of neuron, the backpropagation algorithm in Nitta et al.
[Nit1, Nit2] is generalized to the case of continuous time neural networks.
Utilizing traditional model of a neuron, unified theory of control, communication and
computation is discovered and formalized [Rama 4]. This unified theory is generalized
using the models of neurons discussed in this chapter [Rama1].
8.8. CONCLUSIONS
In this, chapter models of neurons are proposed. The synapses are considered as distributed
elements rather than lumped elements. Thus, synapses are modeled as linear filters in
continuous time as well as discrete time. Using these novel models of neurons, associated
neural networks are proposed. Also, a novel model of associative memory is proposed.
Using such a model, convergence aspects of various modes of operation is discussed.
Multidimensional generalizations of neural networks are discussed. Also associated
complex valued neural networks are discussed.
REFERENCES
[AAV] I. N. Aizenberg, N. N. Aizenberg and J. Vandewalle, “Multi-Valued and Universal
Binary Neurons”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
[BrB] J. Bruck and M. Blaum, “Neural Networks, Error Correcting Codes, and Polynomials over
the Binary n-Cube”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, pp. 976- 987, Vol. 35, No.5,
September 1989.
[GoC] B. Gopinath and T. Cover, “Open Problems in Control, Communication and Computation”,
Springer, Hiedelberg, 1987.
[Gop] M. Gopal, “Modern Control System Theory“, John Wiley & Sons, Second Edition,
1993.
[HoS] M. Honig and K. Stieglitz, “On Wyner’s Conjecture”, Bellcore Technical Memorandum.
[Nit1] T. Nitta and T. Furuya: “A Complex Back-propagation Learning”, Transactions of
Information Processing Society of Japan, Vol.32, No.10, pp.1319-1329 (1991) (in Japanese).
[Nit2] T. Nitta : “An Extension of the Back-Propagation Algorithm to Complex Numbers”, Neural
Networks, Vol.10, No.8, pp.1391-1415 (1997).
[Rama1] G. Rama Murthy,” Unified Theory of Control, Communication and Computation”, To
be submitted to Proceedings of IEEE.
[Rama2] G. Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Neural Networks, Multi/Infinite
Dimensional Logic Theory“, International Journal of Neural Systems, Vol. 15, No. 3, Pages
223-235, June 2005.
[Rama3] G. Rama Murthy, “Signal Design for Magnetic/Optical Recording Channels: Spectra of
Bounded Functions“, Bellcore (Now Telcordia) Technical Memorandum, TM-NWT-018026.
[Rama4] G. Rama Murthy, “Optimal Control, Codeword, Logic Function Tensors:
Multidimensional Neural Networks“, International Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and
Informatics, October 2006, pages 9-17.
[Rama5] G. Rama Murthy, “Linear Filter Model of Synapses: Associated Novel Real/Complex
Valued Neural Networks“, IIIT Technical Report in Preparation.
[RaP]G. Rama Murthy and D. Praveen, “Complex-Valued Neural Associative Memory on the
Complex Hypercube“, Proceedings of 2004 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics
and Intelligent Systems (CIS-2004), Singapore.
This page
intentionally left
blank
CHAPTER
9
Novel ComplexV
Complex alued
Valued
Neural Networks
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Starting in 1950s researchers tried to arrive at models of neuronal circuitry. Thus the research
field of artificial neural networks took birth. The so-called, perceptron was shown to be
able to classify linear separable patterns. Since the Ex-clusive OR gate cannot be synthesized
through any perceptron (as the gate outputs are not linearly separable), the interest in
artificial neural networks faded away. In the 1970s, it was shown that multi-layer feed
forward neural network such as a multi-layer perceptron is able to classify non-linearly
separable patterns.
Living systems/machines such as homosapiens, lions, tigers etc. have the ability to
associate externally presented one/two/three dimensional information such as audio
signal/images/three dimensional scenes with the information stored in the brain. This
highly accurate ability of association of information is amazingly achieved through the
bio-chemical circuitry in the brain. In 1980s Hopfield revived the interest in the area of
artificial neural networks through a model of associative memory. The main contribution
is a convergence theorem which shows that the artificial neural network reaches a memory/
stable state starting in any arbitrary initial input (in a certain important mode of operation).
He also demonstrated several interesting variations of associative memory. In (Rama4), a
continuous-time version of associative memory is described. It is shown that the celebrated
convergence theorem in discrete time generalizes to the continuous time associative
memory. In (Rama2), the model of associative memory in one dimension (Hopfield
associative memory) is generalized to multi/infinite dimensions and the associated
convergence theorem is proven.
It was realized by researchers such as N.N. Aizenberg that the basic model of a
neuron must be modified to account for complex valued inputs, complex valued
synaptic weights and thresholds [AAV]. In many real world applications, complex
valued input signals need to be processed by neural networks with complex synaptic
weights [Hir]. Thus the need to study, design and analysis of such networks is real.
Also, in (Rama3) the results on real valued associative memories are extended to
complex valued neural networks. In [Nit1, Nit2], the celebrated back propagation
algorithm is generalized to complex valued neural networks. Also, in [Rama4], based
on a novel model of neuron, complex valued neural networks are designed. Thus, based
on the results in section 2, section 3, it is reasoned that transforming real valued signals
into complex domain and processing them in the complex domain could have many
advantages.
This chapter is organized as follows. In Section 2, Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT)
is utilized to transform a set of real/complex valued sequences into the complex valued
( frequency) domain. It is reasoned that, in a well defined sense, processing the signals
using complex valued neural networks is equivalent to processing them in real domain.
In Section 3, a novel model of continuous time neuron is discussed. The associated neural
networks (based on the novel model of neuron) are briefly outlined. In Section 4, some
important generalizations are discussed. In Section 5, some open questions are outlined.
The chapter concludes in Section 6.
9.2 DISCRETE FOURIER TRANSFORM: SOME COMPLEX VALUED

NEURAL NETWORKS
In the field of Digital Signal Processing (DSP), discrete sequences are processed by discrete
time circuits such as digital filters. One transform which converts the time domain
information into frequency domain is called as the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT). One
of the main reasons for utilizing the DFT in many applications is the existence of a fast
algorithm to compute DFT. This fast algorithm is called as the Fast Fourier Transform
(FFT). In the following, we provide the mathematical expressions for the Discrete Fourier
Transform (DFT) as well as Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform (IDFT) of a discrete sequence
{X n } nM=−01 i.e. { x0 , x1 , x2 ,..., xM − 1 } .
M −1
DFT: X ( k ) = ∑
n =0
x(n) WMk n for 0 ≤ k ≤ ( M − 1) (9.1)
M −1
1
IDFT: x(n ) =
M ∑
k =0
X( k ) WM− k n for 0 ≤ n ≤ ( M − 1) (9.2)
Where
2π
− j( )
WM = e M
(9.3)
Novel Complex Valued Neural Networks 131
The results in this section are motivated by the question:

Main Question: Consider a set of samples which are linearly separable in the M-
dimensional Euclidean space. Utilizing an invertible (Bijection) Linear Transformation,
transform the points. In the transformed domain, are the resulting samples, linearly separable?
In answering this question, we are led to the following Lemma.
Lemma 9.1: Under Bijective Linear Transformation, linearly separable patterns in Euclidean
Space are mapped to linearly separable patterns in the transform space.
Proof: For the sake of notational convenience, we consider the patterns in a 2-dimensional
Euclidean space. Let the bijective/invertible linear transformation be T: R 2 → R 2 .
Let the original separating line (more generally hyperplane) be given by
W1 X + W2 Y = C (9.4)
Two regions (decided by the separating line/hyper plane be) in R 2 are:

S1 = {( x, y)| W1 x + W2 y ≥ C }
S2 = {( x , y)| W1 x + W2 y < C } (9.5)

Now let us consider the Linear Transformation, T:
T : R2 → R 2
(9.6)
( x , y ) → ( px + qy , rs + sy )
Let the linear transformation be represented by the following matrix:
 p q
 r s (9.7)
 
Under this transformation, the separating line coordinates become:
 X '   p q  X 
 Y '  =  r s  Y  (9.8)
    
Thus we readily have
X‘ = pX + qY
(9.9)
Y‘ = rX + sY
On inverting the linear transformation, we have
−1
X  p q  X '
Y =  (9.10)
  r s  Y ' 
 
 s /d −q /d   X ' 
=  −r /d p /d   Y ' 
'
Where d is the determinant of the matrix and is given by d = p s – q r. We thus have
s q 
X d X' − d Y ' 
Y =   (9.11)
   −r p
 X' + Y ' 
d d 
Thus, substituting for X, Y in the original separating line/hyper plane
W1 X + W2 Y = C , we readily have
s q   −r p 
W1  X ' − Y '  + W2  X' + Y ' = C
d d   d d 
(W1 s − W2 r ) X‘ + (−W1q + W2 p)Y‘ = Cd (9.12)

From the above equations, it is clear that a point in two dimensional Euclidean space
belonging to the set gets transformed to the point T (x . y ) = (x ', y ') i.e.
(x , y ) ∈ S1
T (x , y ) = ( x ', y ')∈S '1 Where the set S’1 is given by
S1‘ = {( x‘, y‘):(W1 s − W2 r )x‘ + (−W1q + W2 p)y‘ ≥ Cd} (9.13)
• Thus we have shown that the patterns which are linearly seperable in two
dimensional Euclidean space will remain linearly seperable after applying a
bijective linear transformation to the samples.
• The above proof is easily generalized to samples in n-dimensional Euclidean
space ( where ‘n’ is arbitrary). Q.E.D.
Consider the equation (9.1) for computing the Discrete Fourier Transformation of a
discrete sequence of samples {x(n) : 0 ≤ n ≤ ( M − 1)}. Let the column vector containing these
samples be given by Y. Also, let the column vector containing the transformed samples i.e
{X(k) : 0 ≤ k ≤ ( M − 1)} be given by Z. It is clear that equation (9.1) is equivalent to the
following:
Z = F Y, (9.14)
Where F is the Discrete Fourier Transform matrix. This matrix is invertible. Hence the
transformation between the discrete sequence vectors Y, Z is bijective. Thus the above
Lemma applies.
9.3 COMPLEX VALUED PERCEPTRON
Consider a single layer of conventional perceptrons. Let the sequence of input vectors be
{Y1 , Y2 ,..., YL } . The following supervised learning procedure is utilized to classify the patterns:
• Apply the DFT to the successive input training sample vectors resulting in the
vectors. {Z1 , Z2 ,...., ZL } .
• Train a single layer of Complex Valued Perceptrons using the transformed sample
vectors (complex valued version of perceptron learning law provided in [AAV]
is used)
• Apply the IDFT to arrive at the proper class of training samples.
• Utilize the trained complex valued neural network to classify the test patterns.
In view of Lemma 1, the above procedure converges when the training samples are
linearly separable. Thus the linearly separable test patterns are properly classified.
The above procedure is also applied for non-linearly separable patterns using a complex
valued Multi-Layer Perceptron. Back propagation algorithm discussed in [Nit1, Nit2] is
utilized. Detailed discussion is provided in [Rama1]. It is argued by Nitta et al. that the complex
valued version of back propagation algorithm converges faster than the real one. Thus from
computational viewpoint, the above procedure is attractive.
9.4 NOVEL MODEL OF A NEURON: ASSOCIATED NEURAL NETWORKS
In conventional model of neuron, weighted contribution (weights being the synaptic

weights) of current input values is taken and a suitable activation function ( Signum or
Sigmoid or hyperbolic tangent) is applied. A biologically more probable model takes the
following facts into account
• The output of a neuron depends not only on the current input value, but all the
input values over a finite horizon. Thus inputs to neurons are defined over a finite
horizon (rather than a single time point).
• Synapses are treated as distributed elements rather than lumped elements. Thus
synaptic weights are functions defined on a finite support.
For the sake of convenience, let the input as well as synaptic weight functions be defined
on the support [0, T].
Novel Mathematical Model of Neuron

Let the synaptic weights be wi (t), 1 ≤ i ≤ M i.e. time functions defined on the support [0,T].
Also, let the inputs be given by ai (t),1 ≤ i ≤ M .
Thus, the output of the neuron is given by
 M 
y(t ) = Sign 
 j =1 ∑
a j (t ) w j (t ) 

(9.15)
 
More general activation functions ( sigmoid, hyperbolic tangent etc.) could be used. The
successive input functions are defined over the interval [0,T]. They are fed as inputs to the
continuous time neurons at successive SLOTS. For the sake of notational convenience, we
call such a neuron, a continuous time perceptron.
M
y(t) = Sign[ Σ a (t) w (t) ]
1 i
a1(t) i=1
w1(t)
w2(t)
a2(t)
. wm(t)
.
.
am (t)
Fig 9.1 A novel model of continuous time neuron.
9.5. CONTINUOUS TIME PERCEPTRON LEARNING LAW
As in the case of “conventional perceptron”, a continuous time perceptron learning law is

given by:
(n )
Wi(n+1) (t) = Wi (t) + η ( S(t ) − g(t) ) ai (t) (9.16)
where S(t) is the target output for the current training example, g(t) is the output
generated by the continuous time perceptron and η is a positive constant called the
learning rate. The proof of convergence of conventional perceptron learning law, also
guarantees the point wise convergence (not necessarily uniform convergence) of
synaptic weight functions.
Using sigmoid function as the activation function and the continuous perceptron as
the model of neuron, it is straightforward to arrive at a continuous time Multi-Layer
Perceptron. The conventional back propagation algorithm is generalized to such a feed
forward network.
Modulation Theory: Feed Forward Neural Networks

Suppose the synaptic weight functions are chosen as sinusoids i.e. wi (t) = cos υi t or sin υ i t
(where υi = 2π f i and fi ’s are frequencies of the sinusoids). The weighted contribution at
each neuron actually corresponds to Amplitude Modulation (where the synaptic weight
functions are the carrier frequencies and the inputs are the base band signals).
We seriously expect that the well known results in Modulation Theory (of
communication systems) could be effectively utilized in supervised learning using a single/
multiple layer perceptron.
9.6 SOME IMPORTANT GENERALIZATIONS
• Unlike the perceptron model (inputs constitute a vector) discussed previously,

it is possible to consider the case where the inputs constitute a three/
multidimensional array (For instance in biological systems, the neurons are indexed
by three dimension variables). Utilizing tensor products, the outputs of continuous
time neurons are obtained. Also, using the above model of neuron, multi-layer,
multidimensional neural networks (such as Multidimensional Multi-layer
Perceptron) are designed and studied [Rama1].
• Based on the above model of neuron, it is possible to consider complex valued
neural networks in which the input functions, synaptic weight functions, thresholds
are complex valued. It is possible to generalize the perceptron learning law,
complex valued back propagation algorithm to such complex valued neural
networks [Rama1].
• It should be possible to design and study complex valued associative memories
based on the above model of neuron.
9.7 SOME OPEN QUESTIONS
• Is it possible to generalize Lemma 1 (discussed in section 2) to function spaces?

Or equivalently, what is the most general version of Lemma 1 ?
• Consider the problem of supervised learning in a function space. Equivalently
consider a function space over [0,T]. Define a distance metric over such a space.
Design a neural network which can be trained to classify the patterns into finitely
many classes (of functions) [Rama 4].
• CLIFFORD NEURAL NETWORKS: Some researchers modeled the neuronal
parameters using quaternions. These quaternion based neural networks are
utilized in practical applications such as colour night vision [KIM]. Also some
authors have utilized geometric algebra in designing novel neural networks. An
important open problem is to show that the Clifford/geometric algebra based
neural networks have important advantages over the real valued neural networks.
9.8 CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, transforming real valued signals into complex domain (using DFT) and
processing them using complex valued neural network is discussed. A novel model of
neuron is proposed. Based on such a model, real as well as complex valued neural networks
are proposed. Some open research questions are provided.
REFERENCES
[AAV] I. N. Aizenberg, N. N. Aizenberg and J. Vandewalle, “Multi-Valued and Universal
Binary Neurons”, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
[Hir] A.Hirose, “Complex Valued Neural Networks: Theories and Applications“, World Scientific
Publishing Company, November 2003.
[KIM] H. Kusamichi, T. Isokawa, N. Matsui et al. “A New Scheme for Colour Night Vision by
Quaternion Neural Network“, 2nd International Conference on Autonomous robots & agents,
Dec. 13-15, 2004, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
[Nit1] T. Nitta and T. Furuya: “A Complex Back-propagation Learning”, Transactions of
Information Processing Society of Japan, Vol.32, No.10, pp.1319-1329 (1991) (in Japanese).
[Nit2] T. Nitta : “An Extension of the Back-Propagation Algorithm to Complex Numbers,”
Neural Networks, Vol.10, No.8, pp.1391-1415 (1997).
[Rama1] G. Rama Murthy, “Unified Theory of Control, Communication and Computation”, To
be submitted to Proceedings of IEEE.
[Rama 2] G. Rama Murthy, “Multi/Infinite Dimensional Neural Networks, Multi/Infinite
Dimensional Logic Theory“, International Journal of Neural Systems, Vol.15, No. 3 (2005), 1-
13, June 2005.
[Rama 3] G. Rama Murthy and D. Praveen, “Complex-Valued Neural Associative Memory on
the Complex Hypercube“, Proceedings of 2004 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics
and Intelligent Systems (CIS-2004), Singapore.
[Rama 4] G. Rama Murthy, “Linear Filter Model of Synapses: Associated Novel Real/Complex
Valued Neural Networks“, IIIT Technical Report in preparation.
[Rama 5] G. Rama Murthy, “Some Novel Real/Complex Valued Neural Network Models,”
Proceedings of 9th Fuzzy days, (International Conference on Computational Intelligence),
September 2006, Dortmund, Germany, Pages, 473-483.
Advanced Theory of Evolution of Living Systems 137
CHAPTER
10
Advanced Theory of
Evolution of Living Systems
10.1 UNIFIED THEORY: CYBERNETICS
Unified theory of control, communication and computation discovered and formalized by

the author led to the birth of the field of Mathematical Cybernetics. Its formal/mathematical
basis can be contrasted to the several ad hoc-pseudo mathematical developments in the
fields of mathematical biology, psychology, engineering etc. based on the initial enthusiasm
generated by Wiener who coined the word.
Mathematical cybernetics is the field of formal clarity/completeness which provides
abstract models of increasing complexity which demonstrates the equivalence of the
functions of control, communication and computation in the machine and the living system
from the point of view of the theory/practice (physical hardware) through linear/non-
linear, real/complex dynamical systems.
This field of mathematical/formal research on LIVING SYSTEMS in the universe
pioneered by the author led him to take a deeper and mathematical approach to the CRUDE,
EMPIRICAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION originated by Darwin and seriously investigated
by various biological/zoological researchers. It is argued that the concepts utilized by the
evolutionists in the theory of organic evolution are incorrect and need to be modified/
updated in view of the unified theory of control, communication and computation. For the
purposes of completeness along with brevity some details are provided in the following.
10.2 ORGANIC EVOLUTION
Various life forms starting with one/few cell organisms such as amoeba, hydra etc. have
evolved from the organic mass in the oceans under certain atmospheric conditions. Some of
these organisms have a starting with the ellipsoid based egg. The egg based life forms have
formed organs such as eye, mouth due to the organic reactions taking place inside the egg.
With one/two eyes formed on the surface of the egg, due to the rotation of the earth, the
natural terrain in the oceans, the egg was constantly drifting in the ocean. The homogeneity
of the organic mass has simultaneously led to the formation of several eggs in the same
region. This led to the problem of congestion in the region (of eggs). The life forms, in order
to cope with the problem began to develop limbs for LOCOMOTION. The remaining organs
formed due to the natural environment/atmosphere have similar topological features in
different species of living systems (UNIFICATION of various LIVING species). The life forms
began to jostle and to handle the environmental needs, the ellipsoid based egg deformed to
form various shapes for the body and primitive organs (non-intelligence based). These
differences in the shape/topological features of the body, organs led to the classification of
such living systems into species such as frogs, fish, crocodiles etc.
The initial organic mass based life had no intelligence. The set of characteristics that
are common to various life forms have formed over a large length of time. Some novel and
innovative concepts which are the distinguishing features of this advanced theory are
briefly described below.
10.3 EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS: INNOVATIVE PRINCIPLES
(A) Principle of Equivalence of Trainability of Intelligence in all Natural Living Systems: The
observed variation of intelligence in living systems could be due to variation of
the biochemical content in the brain. But by training various living systems to
learn a language, they could be made intelligent and a certain living animal
culture with intelligence can be developed. In essence, various lower/higher level
animals could be organized in a zoo and rendered useful to themselves as well
as homo-sapiens.
(B) Principle of Non-Necessity of Perceived Needs of Living Systems: Various species
characteristics as needs have evolved over a period of time. These cravings/needs
are genetically replicated. Some of these needs/cravings are not necessary to
sustain life. For instance, METABOLISM which leads to killing of one life form
by another was an accident and is not necessary to sustain the life of various
species of organic life based machines.
(C) “Life” and “death” are identical to functioning and non-functioning machines. It
should be possible to take an organically non-decayed species form which is “dead”
due to “bleeding”, heart failure, some organic decay, malignant growth etc. and make
it living. Thus, in some sense, there is no death. In summary, unified theory sheds
a proper light on the previously less understood concepts of death and life.
(D) Reproduction, as a species need has evolved over a long period of time. This has
led to the problem of overpopulation in some parts of the planet. As is well
known, reproductive appetite could be turned off.
Advanced Theory of Evolution of Living Systems 139
(E) Various problems of homo-sapiens in individual families, in communities, in

geographical boundaries, across countries have arisen due to the programming
of the homo-sapien machines. For instance, the tradition of “battle” in European
communities is a disease. Thus, various human, living machine diseases are cured
through proper understanding like problems in science or mathematics.
(F) By cross fertilizing the eggs of different species of living machine such as monkeys,
homo-sapiens, lions, tigers etc. it might be possible to give birth to lower-higher
animal, sea-land animal, air-land animal, other combinations of living machines.
Thus, creation/organization/civilization/culturing of whole new class of living
machines is a promising possibility.
Utilizing the mathematical theories of optimization (of various types...functional,
multivariate, constrained etc), MORPHOGENESIS etc. various macro-scale aspects of
living systems—shapes of body organs, their functions etc; micro-scale aspects of living
systems—structure of DNA, protein chains, structure of genes etc. are formally explained.
Thus, systems in living as well as non-living material universe are endowed with an
optimization interpretation (at micro-scale as well as macro-scale).
10.4 CONCLUSIONS
In an effort to understand non-living physical reality, various sub-fields of science such as
physics and chemistry were developed. Based on experimental observations from physical
reality, various mathematical, empirical theories were constucted to derive laws of nature.
These laws, principles, theories on non-living physical reality were utilized to develop
science and engineering. The field of biology was developed to understand the composition,
operation, coordination of various organs/functional units of living systems in nature such
as homo-sapiens, tigers etc. The distinction between living pysical reality and non-living
physical reality was very puzzling to scientists. In the mid 1940’s, N. Wiener coined the
word CYBERNETICS for the field dedicated to understand the control, communication
and computation functions of living systems.
The author pioneered the field of mathematical cybernetics by unifying the control,
communication and computation functions of living system functional units. Thus, a
mathematical model of natural living systems was developed. It is shown that in the context
of one dimensional linear dynamical systems that the unification includes various other
functions alongwith control, communication and computation. By utilizing the tensor state
space representation of certain multi/infinite dimensional linear dynamical systems
discovered by the author, cybernetics results for multi/infinite dimensional systems were
developed. These results enabled the development of multi/infinte dimensional coding,
computation and system theories.
The author also made some pioneering investigations into the functions of various
natural living sytems. These investigations provided the important conclusion that the
living machines such as homo-sapiens, tigers etc. programmed themselves for functions
such as metabolism, sex etc. Many issues of importance to the living machines such as
control/coordination of them, diseases, programmed bad habits are all addressed based
on a proper understanding of the theory. The advanced theory of evolution resulting from
the unified theory of control, communication and computation resulted in new perspectives
into nature based living systems.
In summary, in this book, the author related multidimensional logic, coding and control
theories to the concept of multidimensional neural networks (proposed by him). He
innovated a novel complex signum function and proposed a novel complex valued
associative memory. Several novel models of neuron are proposed and associated real as
well as complex valued neural networks are discussed.
Index 141
Index
A Arbitrary Open 54
ARMA Time Series Model 72
A codeword 91 Array 35
A Human/Animal Brain 125 Artificial 3, 107
A Multi-Layer Feed Forward Network 120 Artificial Neural Networks 81, 117, 118, 129
A Sigmoid Function 120 Associated Boundary Conditions 87
Astable State 16, 124 Associative Memory 79, 80, 125, 129
Abstract Mathematical Structure 118 Attasi’s Model 64
Abstract Model 79 Audio Signal 129
Abstract models 137 Auto-Regressive (AR) 70
Accurate 118 Auto-Regressive Moving Average (ARMA) 70
Activation Function 118, 125, 133, 134 Autocorrelation Tensors 71
Activation Functions 125 Automata 4, 10
Adaptive Neural Networks 24
Addition 120
Additive 42
B
Additive I.I.D. Noise Term 72 Back Propagation Algorithm 118, 122, 126, 130, 133
Adjoint Equations 87 Basic Model of a Neuron 129
Admissible Control Tensors 87 Basis 33
Admissible Functions 64 Behavior 64, 96
Admissible Sequence 83, 108, 109, 113 Behavior Approach 64
Advanced Theory of Evolution 137 Better Model of Neurons 117
Algebraic Geometry 45 Bijection 131
Algebraic Threshold Function 1, 29, 95, 97 Bijective Linear Transformation 131
All One Dimensional Logic Gates 81 Binary Arrays 9
All-Ones Tensor 40 Binary Codes 50
Amplitude Modulation 135 “Binary Filtering” 113
Analog Linear Filter. 121 Binary Linear Multidimensional Code, 42
Analysis 62, 63, 76 Binary Tensor 33
AND, OR , NOR, NAND, XOR Gate 17 Binary Valued Functions 123
AND, OR, NOR, NAND, XOR Gates 81 Binary Vector 123
AND, OR, NOR, NAND, XOR, NOT Gates 90 Biological Neural Networks 117
AND, OR, NOT, NAND, XOR, NOR 9 Biological Neurons 117
Animal 1 Biological Systems 135
Approximation 55 Bipartite Graph 104
Approximation Theory 55 Block Codes 107
Arbitrary Algebraic Threshold Function 12 Block Symmetric Tensor 18
Block Tensor 32 Coding 4

Block Tensors 33 Coding Theory Approach 107
Blocked Tensor 32 Coding Theory 27
Boolean Algebra 3 Colored Noise 71
Boolean Function 46, 48, 49 Colored Noise Model 72
Boolean Functions 9, 46, 47 Common Thread 80
Boolean Logic Theory 80 Common Thread of Neural Networks 80, 81
Bounded Extent 113 Communication 4, 79, 80, 81
Bounded Lattice 24, 53, 54 Communication and Computation 91
Bounded Lattices 54 Communication Systems 135
Bounded Magnitude 113 Commutative Operator 113
Bounded Support [0, T] 118, 123 Compact 54
Bounded Support Input 113 Compact Set 53, 54, 55
Brain of Powerful Robots 80 Compatible Tensors 15, 59
Complex 97
C Complex Domain 136
Complex Hypercube 96, 97
Causal/Non-Causal Parts 75 Complex Neural Networks 24
Certain Discrete Time Multidimensional Systems Complex Number 97, 120
83 Complex Part of the Weight Matrix 103
Certain Discrete Time System 82 Complex Signum Function 105, 125
Certain Multidimensional Linear System 109 Complex Synaptic Weight Matrix 102
Certain Multidimensional Linear Systems 62 Complex Synaptic Weights 130
Certain Multidimensional System 82 Complex Valued 96
Certain Multidimensional Systems 69, 82 Complex Valued Associative memory 96, 102, 125
Certain Multi/Infinite 65 Complex Valued Backpropagation Algorithm 135
Channels 107 Complex Valued, Continuous Time Associative
Characteristic Tensor 32 Memory 124
Cholesky Decomposition 56, 57 Complex Valued, Continuous Time Multi-layer
Circuits 32 Perceptron 126
Civilization, 1 Complex Valued, Continuous Time Neuron 125
Class of Input Signals 118 Complex Valued Inputs 129
Class of Inputs 123 Complex Valued Multi-Layer Perceptron 133
Class of Problems in P? 56 Complex Valued Neural Net 102
Classes (of Functions) 135 Complex Valued Neural Network 96, 101, 105,
Classes of Functions 55 133, 135, 136
Classes of NP-Hard Problems 56 Complex Valued Neural Networks 118, 125, 130
Clifford Neural Networks 135 Complex Valued Neuron 125
Clifford/Geometric Algebra 135 Complex Valued Perceptron 133
Code 29, 49 Complex Valued Perceptrons 133
Codes 27 Complex Valued Sigmoidal Function 126
Codeword 33, 38, 40, 81 Complex Valued Synaptic Weights 129
Codeword Array 35 Complex Valued Vector 97
Codeword Tensor 35, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49 Complex-Valued 97, 135
Codeword Vector 35 Complexity Theory 55
Codewords 27, 53, 54 Computation 3
Index 143
Computation 4, 79, 80, 81, 90 Control 3, 4, 79, 80, 81

Computation Functions 92 Control, Communication 4, 90, 92
Concept of a Logic Gate 80 Control, Communication and Computation 92
Concept of Error 81 Controllability 61, 62, 82
Concept of Error Correcting Code 80 Controllability, Observability, Stability 69
Concept of Neural Network 81 Conventional Approaches 68
Concepts 82 Conventional Back Propagation Algorithm 134
Connection Matrix 57, 58, 96, 113 Conventional Model of Neuron 133
Connection Structure 12, 14, 18, 21, 24, 27, 29, Conventional Perceptron 134
31, 32, 34, 92 Conventional Perceptrons 133
Connection Tensor 22 Conventional State Space Models 77
Connectionist Structure 11, 13 Converge 97
Constrained Static Optimization 53 Converge Uniformly 119
Constraint 57 Convergence 22
Constraint set 24, 53, 54, 55, 57, 84 Convergence of Energy 16
Continuous Time 86 Convergence Properties 96
Continuous Function 55 Convergence Theorem 10, 14, 17, 21, 30, 125
Continuous Index/Argument 87 Convergence Theorems 96
Continuous Objective Functions 55 Converges 133
Continuous Time 62, 71 Convex Polygon/Polytope 57
Continuous Time Associative Memory 122 Convex Polytope 57
Continuous Time I. I. D. Noise 72 Convolution 113, 118, 120
Continuous Time Linear Multidimensional Convolution operation 119
Systems 62 Correcting codes 81
Continuous Time Linear System 123 Corrupted codeword 27
Continuous Time Multi-Layer 134 Corrupted word 92
Continuous Time Neural Associative Memory 91 Cosets 41
Continuous Time Neural Networks 24, 121, 126 Cost function 84, 109
Continuous Time Neuron 121 Criterion 108
Continuous Time Neurons 119, 135 Cut 30, 32
Continuous Time or Discrete Time 4 Cut codes 33
Continuous Time Perceptron 118, 134 Cut space 32, 33, 92
Continuous Time Perceptron Learning Law Cuts 32
119, 134 Cybernetics 79
Continuous Time Perceptron Law 118, 134 Cycle 21, 97
Continuous Time Perceptrons 121 Cycle of length 2, 97
Continuous Time Strucured Markov Random field 71 Cycle of length two 104
Continuous Time System 124 Cycles 22, 30
Continuous Time Systems 66 Cycles in the State Space 20
Continuous Time Version 75
Continuous Time Versions 86
Continuous Time Versions of These Models 71 D
Continuous-time 118, 129
Continuous-time Multi-Layer Perceptron 120, Darwin 137
121 Data bases 62
Continuous-Time Neuron 120 “Death” 138
Contraction 12, 14, 35, 48 Decoders 34
Decoding 27, 45 Discrete Time Simulation 124

Decoding Algorithm 45 Discrete Time System 123, 124
Decoding Techniques 28, 52 Discrete Time Systems 66, 67, 82
Decomposition Principle 29, 54, 55, 57 Discrete Time, Time Varying Linear Systems: 83
Decompositions of the State Space 76 Discrete Time, Two Dimensional System 62
Definition 23 Discretizing a Continuous Time System 124
Degree n 11 Disease 139
Derivative 67 Distance Measures 42
Design 63 Distance Metric Over Such a Space 135
Design a Constellation 27 Distributed Dynamical Systems 73, 76, 77
Design, Analysis 61, 62 Distributed Elements 117, 126, 133
Design of Codes 28 Distributed Nature of 74
Determinant of the Matrix 132 Dual 29
DFT 133, 136 DUAL of Signal Design Problem 113
Difference Equation 71 Dynamic as well as Static Linear Systems 76
Difference Equations 61 Dynamic Optimization 24
Difference in Energy 16 Dynamic Programming Principle 83
Differential Equations 61, 69 Dynamical System 29, 66
Differential/partial differential equations 76 Dynamical Systems 63, 75, 86, 137
Digital filter 122 Dynamics 82
Digital filters 130
Digital Signal Processing 130 E
Dimension 13, 22, 29
Dimensional 27 Each Neuron Act 135
Dimensional Continuous Time 67 Egg 138
Dimensional Dynamical Systems 65 Eigentensors 72
Dimensional Hypercube 53 Eigenvalue 58
Dimensional Linear as well as Non-Linear Codes 34 Eigenvalues 72
Dimensional Neural Networks 27 Eigenvectors 58
Discovered and Formalized 82 Electrical Transmission Lines 73
Discovery and Formalization 80 Ellipsoid 138
Discrete Fourier Transform 130 Ellipsoid Based Egg 137
Discrete Fourier Transform matrix 133 Empirical Theory of Evolution 137
Discrete Fourier Transformation 132 Encode 35
Discrete Maximal Principle 108 Encoded Codeword 37
Discrete maximum principle 83 Encoder 4
Discrete memoryless channel 37 Encoders 34
Discrete Sequence of Samples 132 Encoding 27, 35
Discrete Sequences 130 Encoding Algorithm 45
Discrete Time 82 Encoding Procedure 37, 38, 43, 44
Discrete Time Input Signals 122 Encoding/Decoding Algorithms 35, 45
Discrete Time Linear System 124 Energy Density Matrix 123
Discrete Time Multidimensional Neural Network Energy density tensor 86, 89, 124
29 Energy E 16
Discrete Time Multidimensional Systems 62 Energy Function 10, 1, 15, 16, 17, 21, 27,
Discrete Time Multi/Infinitedimensional System 28, 29, 30, 31, 38, 43, 44, 45, 58, 59,
83 81, 90, 91, 95, 97, 98, 102, 103, 105, 124
Index 145
Energy Function (Quadratic) 34 Function Spaces 135

Energy Function Being A Quadratic Form 91 Fundamental 4
Energy Function Hill Climbing 124
G
Energy Functions 18, 19, 20, 24, 38, 45, 51, 54, 90
Energy Landscape 27
Energy Values 21
G/M/1-Type Structure 72
Entropy 36
Game-Theoretic Codes: Optimal Codes 39
Entropy/Uncertainty 37
Generalization of Back Propagation Algorithm
Equilibrium Distribution 72
120
Error Correcting Codes 31, 34, 59, 81
Generalized Logic Circuit 19
Errors 27, 39
Generalized Logic Function 19
Euclidean Space 117
Generalized Logic Gate 19
Every Codeword 91
Generalized Multidimensional Logic Gate 19
Every Local Maximum 81, 91
Generalized Multidimensional Neural Network 19
Evolution 62
Generalized Neural 91
Evolution At Node 14
Generalized Neural Network 11, 28
Evolution Equations 61
Generalized Neural Networks 124
Evolution of The System 74
Generalized/Multidimensional Neural Networks 12
Evolutionists 137
Generator Tensor 29, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 49,
Exclusive OR 35, 129 53, 71, 72, 90
Generator Tensor, Codeword Tensors 52
F Generator Tensor G 43
Generator Tensors 35
Fast Fourier Transform 130 Generator/Information Tensor 36
Feed Forward Network 118, 134 Generator/Parity Check Tensor 92
Feed-forward/Recurrent Networks of Neurons Generator/Parity Check Tensors 36
118 Global Maximum 28, 29, 30, 34, 38, 40, 81
‘Field’, F 121 Global Optimization 55
Filter 118 Global Optimum 28, 92
Filtering 73, 107 Global Optimum Control Vector 108
Finite Dimensional Vector Space 63 Global Optimum Impulse Response 115
Finite Field 35, 42 Global Optimum Stable State 52
Finite Fields 59 Global States 63
Finite Impulse Response Filter 122 Global/Local Optimum 54
Finite Impulse Response Model 121 Graph-Theoretic Code 22, 57, 92
Finite Impulse Response Model of Synapse 118 Graphoid 29, 31, 33, 34, 92
Finite Support 118, 120, 123 Graphoid Based Codes 29
Finitely Many Classes 117 Graphoid Codes 31, 34
Fourier Laplace Transform 121 Graphoid Theoretic Codes 32
Fully Parallel Mode 14, 16, 20, 96, 103, 104 Graphs of Convergence 102
Fully Symmetric Connection Tensor 91 Group 42, 52
Fully Symmetric Tensor 10, 14, 29, 30, 82, 84
H
Fully Symmetric Tensor of 22
Fully Symmetric Tensor S 13, 15
Function 31
Hadamard Matrix 46, 47
Function Space 118, 120, 121
Half Plane Causal 75
Half Plane Causality 70 Impulse Response 61, 113, 117, 121

Half Plane, Quarter Plane Causal Type Impulse Response of FIR Filters 122
Neighbourhood 76 Impulse Response Sequences 122
Hamiltonian 83, 87 Impulse Response Tensor 83, 85, 86, 89
Hamming Distance 33, 38, 42, 43, 58 Impulse Response Values 113
Hardware 5 Impulse Response 113
Heine-Borel Theorem 53 Incidence Tensor 32
Hermitian 97 Independent, Identically Distributed Noise Model
Hermitian Symmetric Matrix 24 72
Hermitian Synaptic Weight Matrix 97 Infinitedimensional 20, 23
Heuristic Procedures 59 Infinitedimensional Code 36
Higher Degree 23 Infinitedimensional Codes 29, 36
Higher Degree Forms 19 Infinitedimensional Hypercube 23
Higher Dimensional Space 75 Infinitedimensional Linear System 109
Hirose 105 Infinitedimensional Logic Function 22, 23
Homo-sapien 1, 2 Infinitedimensional Logic Theory 10, 20, 22
Homo-sapien Machines 139 Infinitedimensional Neural Network 22
Homo-sapiens 2, 129, 138 Infinitedimensional Symmetric Matrix 20
Homogeneous 71, 74 Infinitedimensional Systems 66
Homogeneous Form of Degree N. 11, 12 Infinitedimensional Tensor 36
Homogeneous Quadratic Form 11 Infinitedimensional Vector 21
Homogeneous Stochastic Linear Systems 71 Infinitedimensional Vector Space 20
Honig 123 Infinite Impulse Response Filter 122
Hop-skip Algorithm 57 Infinite Order/Dimension 29
Hopfield 80, 102, 103, 129 Infinitedimensional Logic Circuit 23
Hopfield Associative Memory 96, 103, 129 Infinitedimensional Logic Gate 22
Hopfield Convergence Theorem 100 Infinitedimensional Logic Gates 23
Hopfield Model 95, 96 Infinitedimensional Logic Synthesis 23
Hopfield Network 124 Information Tensor 35, 37, 38, 46, 49, 52
Hopfield Neural Network 81, 115 Information Theory 107
Hopfield/Amari 79 Information Vector 35
Hypercube 23, 58, 84, 95 Initial Condition 83
Hypercubes 57 Initial State Tensor 72
‘Hyperplane’ 121 Inner and Outer Products Make Sense 84
Hypersphere 58 Inner Product 14, 15, 38, 49, 53, 59, 69, 71, 84, 109
Hyperspheres 54 Inner Product of the Given Tensors 12
Inner Product Operation 82
Inner Product Operator 15
I Inner Product/Outer Product 70
Inner/Outer Product 72
Identity Tensor 40 Innovative Ideas 29
IDFT 133 Input 113, 117
Image Models 73 Input and Output Signal States 17, 81, 90
Image Processing 63, 96, 105 Input Coupling Tensor 67, 68, 82
Image Processing, Tomography 76 Input Energy Density Matrix 113
Images 129 Input Functions 135
Imaginary Parts of 97 Input, Output, State Variables 66
Index 147
Input Patterns 117, 122 Light Wave 34

Input Sequence 109, 122 Lindeloff’s Covering Lemma 54
Input Signal Samples 117 Linear 66, 118
Input Signal Tensors 83 Linear Algebra 61, 63
Input Signals 108, 118 Linear Algebra Concepts 35
Input Tensor 42, 67, 75, 82, 87 Linear As Well As Non-linear Codes 90
Input-Output Models 63 Linear Block Code 29, 81
Input-Output Point of View 63 Linear Block Codes 45, 57
Input-Output Representations 61 Linear Block Multidimensional Code 28
Input/Stable States 10 Linear Block Multidimensional Codes 53
Inputs 117 Linear Code 113
Inputs to Neurons 133 Linear Discrete Time Filter 108
Integer Programming 52 Linear Dynamical System 88
Integer/Non-linear Programming 59 Linear Dynamical Systems 70, 91
Integral of Tensor Function 86 Linear Equations 47
Intelligence 3, 138 Linear Filtering 113
Interconnection Structure 23 Linear Filters 126
Interesting Observation 97 Linear Multidimensional 49
Internal Representations 64 Linear Multidimensional Block Code 38, 41, 42
Invariant Distribution 72 Linear Multidimensional Block Codes 38, 41
Invariants of a Tensor 17 Linear Multidimensional Codeword Tensor 49
Invertible 133 Linear Operator 63, 70, 72
Isolated Theories 79 Linear Operators 62, 109
Isolating 97 Linear Prediction 73
Linear Programming 56
J Linear Programming Problems 57
Linear Programming Problems: Decomposition
Jacobian Matrix 76 Principle 57
Jacobian Tensor 76 Linear Separability 121
Linear Space 68
K Linear System 107, 117
Linear System Theory 61
Knapsack Problem 57 Linear Systems 5, 24, 61
Linear Systems/Filters 118
L
Linear Tensor/Vector 32
Linear Tensor/Vector Space 32
Linear Time Invariant Continous Time System 81
Language 138
Linear Time Invariant Multidimensional System 89
Latent Variable Models 64
Linear Time Varying Multidimensional System 91
Lattice 22, 50, 59
Lattice (Unbounded Lattice) 24 Linear Time Varying Multi/Infinitedimensional
Lattice 5 Dynamical Systems 84
Learning Laws 117 Linear Time Varying System 108
Learning Rate 119, 134 Linear Time Varying Systems 112
Lee Distance 42, 43, 44, 45 Linear Time-invariant System 124
Lee Weight 44 Linear Transformation, 131
“Life” 138 Linear Transformation Groups 51
Linear Transformations 65 M-Dimensional Input Array 19

Linear/Non-linear 137 M/G/1-type Structure 72
Linear/Non-linear Codewords 54 Machines 3, 4
Linear/Non-linear Dynamical Systems 62 Macro-scale Aspects 139
Linear/Non-linear Multidimensional Codewords 54 Magnetic and Optical Recording Systems 81
Linearly Separable 122, 131 Magnetic/Optical Recording Channel 123
Linearly Separable Patterns 131 Magnetic/Optical Recording Channels 122
Linearly Separable Test Patterns 133 Markov Chains 71
Linearly Seperable 132 Markov Random Field is a Stochastic Linear
Living Systems 4, 137 System 73
Living Systems/Machines 129 Markovian 64
Local Control 62, 66, 76 Markovian Property 65
Local Input 66 Markovian Source 37
Local Input, Local Output 76 Mathematical Abstraction 10
Local Maxima 100 Mathematical Clarity 80
Local Maximum 28, 29, 91 Mathematical Cybernetics 137
Local Minimum/Maximum Of 17 Mathematical Model 11, 12, 13, 79, 90
Local Optima 55, 57, 81, 90 Mathematical Structure 120
Local Optima of Energy Function 19, 81 Mathematical Theory of Communication 36
Local Optima of The Energy Functions 18 Matrix 133
Local Optimum 19, 54, 91, 92 Maximization of a Quadratic Form 52
Local Optimum Control Vector 108 Maximization of Multivariate Polynomial 37
Local Output 66 Maximum Eigenvector 58
Local State 62, 66, 76 Maximum Likelihood Decoding 28, 29, 33, 34,
Local State, Local Control 76 41, 43, 44, 45, 50, 57, 59, 81, 92
Local State Tensor 75 Maximum Likelihood Decoding Problem 37, 42, 43
Local State, The Input 64 Maximum Likelihood Problem (MID) 41
Local States 63 Maximum of The Quadratic Energy Function 34
Locomotion 138 Maximum Weight Independent Set 52
Logic Circuit 10, 19 Maximum/Minimum 55
Logic Circuits 10, 19, 80 Maximum/Minimum Energy States 90
Logic Function 10 McCulloch and Pitts 118
Logic Functions 17, 22, 114 McCulloch-Pitts Neuron 95
Logic Gate 10, 81 Mean Square Error 107
Logic Gates 3, 9, 19, 22, 80 Measurement Noise 73
Logic Gates, Logic Circuits 17 Measurement Noise Models 72
Logic Synthesis 9, 10, 80 Message 4
Logic Theory 9, 81 Metabolism 138
Lumped 117 Metabolism and Reproduction 1, 6
Lumped Elements 117, 126, 133 Metric Space 54
Lyapunov Function 124 Minimum 33
Minimum Cut 28, 29, 31, 34, 56
M Minimum Cut Computation 56
Minimum Cut Problem 52
m-d Hopfield Neural Network 82 Minimum Distance 34, 38, 39, 45
m-d Neural Network 114 Minimum Distance, Correctable Errors 28
M-Dimensional Euclidean Space 131 Minimum Weight 31
Index 149
Minimum/Maximum Energy States 10, 17 Multidimensional Error Correcting Code 27, 31

Minsky 118 Multidimensional Error Correcting Codes 28
Mode of Operation 15 Multidimensional Generalization 56
Model 96, 97 Multidimensional Generalizations 126
Model of Associative Memory 129 Multidimensional Generalized Neural Networks 90
Model of Neuron 118 Multidimensional Graph-type Structure 92
Model of Synapse 122 Multidimensional Hopfield Neural Network 80
Modeling, Design 62 Multidimensional Hypercube 17, 19, 28, 47, 91
Modeling Distributed Dynamical Systems 74 Multidimensional Information Array (Information
Models 117 Theory) 35
Models of Distributed Systems 74 Multidimensional Information Theory 36
Models of Neuronal Circuitry 129 Multidimensional Lattice 19, 23, 27, 28, 38, 51, 53
Models of Neurons 122 Multidimensional Linear As Well As Non-linear 80
Models of Tomographic Images of Brain 73 Multidimensional Linear Block Code
Modern Approaches 68 28, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43
Modes of Operation 14, 96 Multidimensional Linear Block Codes 29, 34
Modes, Serial 96 Multidimensional Linear Code 37, 90, 92
Modulation Theory: Feed Forward Neural Multidimensional Linear Codes 37, 54
Networks 135 Multidimensional Linear Codeword Constellation 34
Monomial 37 Multidimensional Linear Space 69, 70
Monomials 47, 53 Multidimensional Linear Spaces 62
More General Constraint Sets 53 Multidimensional Linear Systems 5
Morphogenesis 139 Multidimensional Logic 19
Multi Layer Perceptron 122 Multidimensional Logic Circuit 18, 23
Multidimensional 66, 90, 110 Multidimensional Logic Function 17, 18
Multidimensional Array/Tensor 23 Multidimensional Logic Functions 10, 18, 19, 25, 90
Multidimensional Arrays 10, 36 Multidimensional Logic Gate 10, 17, 19, 90
Multidimensional Block Code 90 Multidimensional Logic Gate Functions 17, 90
Multidimensional Bounded Lattice 19, 54 Multidimensional Logic Gate/Circuit 10
Multidimensional Channel 33, 36, 43 Multidimensional Logic Gates 18, 23
Multidimensional Code 33, 35 Multidimensional Logic Synthesis 18, 25
Multidimensional Codes 27, 28, 34, 51, 59 Multidimensional Logic Theory 17, 22, 90
Multidimensional Codeword 44, 45 Multidimensional Logic Theory/Logic Synthesis 23
Multidimensional Codeword Set 54 Multidimensional Logic Units 10
Multidimensional Codeword Tensors 91 Multidimensional Metric Space 53
Multidimensional Codewords 38 Multidimensional Neural Network 10, 11, 13, 14,
Multidimensional Coding Theory 27, 90 15, 18, 22, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 59, 90, 92, 118
Multidimensional Communication Systems 36 Multidimensional Neural Networks 10, 11, 18, 23,
Multidimensional Constrained Optimization 28, 51, 59, 80, 82, 90, 92
Problem 55 Multidimensional Neuron 15
Multidimensional Decoding Techniques 53 Multidimensional Neuronal Element 29
Multidimensional Discrete Time Dynamical Multidimensional Neurons 13
System 67 Multidimensional Non-Binary/Binary Codes 53
Multidimensional Encoder 19 Multidimensional Optimization Theory 53
Multidimensional Encoders As Well As Decoders 28 Multidimensional Space 65
Multidimensional Encoding Scheme 37 Multidimensional Stochastic Dynamical System 72
Multidimensional System 58, 65, 73 N

Multidimensional System Theory 62
Multidimensional Systems Natural Linear 107
62, 63, 66, 71, 80, 82, 90 Natural Living Systems 138
Multidimensional Tensor Codeword 40 Nearest/Farthest Neighbourhood Set 75
Multidimensions 114 Necessary Condition 108, 110
Multi-input,Multi-Output (MIMO) 124 Neighbourhood Sets 75
Multi-input, Multi-output (MIMO) Channels 108 Nerode Equivalence 63, 64
Multi-input, Multi-output (MIMO) Linear Time Networks 91
Varying Filters 123 Neumann Series 124
Multi-Layer Feed Forward Neural Network 129 Neural 91
Multi-layer, Multidimensional Neural Networks 135 Neural Net 102, 104
Multi-Layer Neural Networks 117 Neural Network 28, 30, 56, 57, 58, 90, 95, 97,
Multi-Layer Perceptron 117, 118, 129 108, 110, 113, 122, 135
“Multi-Order” System 66 Neural Network Model 27
Multi-Tensor Variate Polynomials 52 Neural Networks 59, 120, 121, 130, 133, 135
Multi-Variate Polynomial Equations 52 Neural/Generalized Neural Networks 38, 59
Multi-Variate Quadratic Form 92 Neuron 12, 13, 122
Multi/Infinitedimensional 5, 63 Neuron Output 96
Multi/Infinitedimensional Coding Theory 35, 62 Neuronal Element 29
Multi/Infinitedimensional Distributed Systems 63 Neuronal Models 117, 118, 120
Multi/Infinitedimensional Hypercube 86, 87 No Natural Notion of Causality 82
Multi/Infinitedimensional Linear Codes 59 Node 13, 99
Multi/Infinitedimensional Linear System 87 Nodes 13
Multi/Infinitedimensional Linear Systems 63, 70 Noise Model 72, 73
Multi/Infinitedimensional Neural Networks 10, 62 Noise Process 73
Multi/Infinitedimensional State 65 Noise Processes 72
Multi/Infinitedimensional State Space 75 Noise Terms 72
Multi/Infinitedimensional State Space Structure 70 Noisy Communication Channels 107
Multi/Infinitedimensional Structured Markov Non-binary Codes 28, 29, 50
Random Field 71 Non-binary Linear Codes 41
Multi/Infinitedimensional System 63 Non-causal Two Dimensional Dynamics 65
Multi/Infinitedimensional System Theory 62, 68, 69 Non-homogeneity 74
Multi/Infinitedimensional Systems 63, 69, 84 Non-linear 28
Multi/Infinitedimensional Versions of Time-series Non-linear Block Codes 45
Models 70 Non-linear Codes 27, 46, 47, 90
Multi/Infnintedimensional State Space 70 Non-linear Multidimensional Codes 29, 46, 50
Multiple Arguments 74 Non-linear System 66
Multiplication 120 Non-linear Systems 107
Multiplication of Tensors 12 Non-linearly Separable Patterns 118, 129, 133
Multiplicative Group 42 Non-negative Diagonal 104
Multiplicative Representation 42 Non-planar Graph 31
Multivariate Polynomial 29, 52, 53, 54, 59 Non-stationary Fields 74
Multivariate Polynomials 28, 29, 34, 51, 52, 54 Non-stationary Tensor Fields 75
Nonstationary Fields 74
Novel Associative Memory 122
Index 151
Novel Continuous Time Associative Memory 118 Optimal Binary Filters: Neural Networks 107
Novel Model of a Neuron 133 Optimal Code 92
Novel Model of Associative Memory 126 Optimal Codeword 92
Novel Model of Continuous Time Neuron 130 Optimal Codeword Vector 81
Novel Model of Neuron 130, 136 Optimal Control 5, 92, 110
Novel Models of Neurons 126 Optimal Control of Certain Multidimensional
NP-hard Problem 52, 56, 57 System 82
NP-hard Problems 55, 59 Optimal Control Problem 87, 114
Optimal Control Sequence 84
O Optimal Control Tensor 82, 84, 86, 89, 91, 92
Optimal Control Tensor Sequence 83
Objective Function 55, 57, 80, 87, 91 Optimal Control Tensors 80, 82, 87, 91, 92
Objective Function J 109 Optimal Control Vector 81, 112, 123, 124
Objective Functions 55 Optimal Control Vectors 81, 92, 108
Observability 61, 62, 82 Optimal Control/ Signal Design 115
One Dimensional 5 Optimal Filter 107
One Dimensional Arrays 9 Optimal Filter Design Problem 113
One Dimensional Arrays i.e.vectors 90 Optimal Filter Problem 113
One Dimensional Arrays of Zeroes and Ones 80 Optimal Filtering Problem 107, 114
One Dimensional Coding Theory 35 Optimal Input 113
One Dimensional Error Control Coding Theory 34 Optimal Input Vector 123
One Dimensional Error Correcting Code 81 Optimal Linear Multidimensional Code 91
One Dimensional Error Correcting Codes 90 Optimal Logic Functions 92
One Dimensional Linear Dynamic Systems 63 Optimal Logic Gate Output 81
One Dimensional Linear Space 69 Optimal Multidimensional Logic Functions 91
One Dimensional Linear System 82 Optimal Sequence 109
One Dimensional Linear Systems 69 Optimal Set of Impulse Responses 113
One Dimensional Logic Functions 18, 81 Optimal Signal Design 107
One Dimensional Logic Theory 17, 18, Optimal Switching Function 91, 92
50, 51, 80, 90 Optimality Condition 83
One Dimensional Neural Network 11, 20, 81 Optimization 23, 27, 28, 54, 55, 59, 80
One Dimensional Neural Networks 20, 80, 81 Optimization Approach 80
One Dimensional Non-Linear Codes 46 Optimization Constraint 27
One Dimensional Optimal Control Vectors 81 Optimization of Multivariate Polynomials 28, 50
One Dimensional Stochastic Linear Systems 71 Optimization of Quadratic/Higher Degree Forms 28
One Dimensional System Theory 76 Optimization Over More General Constraint Sets, 54
One Dimensional Systems 71, 80, 82 Optimum Input Signal 108
One-dimensional Linear Dynamical System 108 Optimum Stable State 56
One/Two/Three Dimensional Information 129 Order 13, 22, 29
Open Problem 83 Ordinary Difference 69
Open Questions 130 Ordinary/Partial Difference/Differential Equations 76
Open Research Problem 107, 122, 123 Organic Evolution 137
Open Set 54 Organic Life Based Machines 138
Open/Closed Sets 29 Organic Mass 137, 138
Operating in the Fully Parallel Mode 97 Organically Non-decayed 138
Optical Networks 34 Oscillate 104
Oscillates 105 Primitive Organs 138

Oscillation 105 Problem of Communication 79
Outer Product 14, 35, 69 Problem of Computation 79
Outer Product of Tensors 12 Problem of Control 79
Output 64, 113 Procedures 27
Output Generated 119 Product 15
Output of A Neuron 133 Programming 139
Output of Each Synapse 118 Programming Problem 59
Output States 10 Proof Arguments 28
Output Tensor 67, 68, 82 Proof of Convergence 134
Output Tensors 72 Proof Technique 96
Outputs 117 Proper Class 133
pth Root of Unity 42
P pth Roots of Unity 44
Parallel Computers 9 Q
Parallel Data Transfer 34
Parallel Mode 21, 22, 97 Quadratic 84
Parallel Modes 14 Quadratic Energy 91
Parity Check Equations 35 Quadratic Energy Function 22, 31, 34, 92
Parity Check Matrices 35 Quadratic Form 23, 31, 56, 58, 86, 91, 92, 95
Parity Check Matrix 35 Quadratic Form over the Hypercube 80
Parity Check Tensor 29, 40 Quadratic Forms 12, 19
Partial Differential Equations 68, 69 Quadratic Objective Function 57, 91, 92
Pattern Recognition 96 Quadratic/Higher Degree Energy Function 10
Patterns 132 Quarter Plane Causal Distributed Dynamical
Perceptron 118, 119, 129, 134 Systems 75
Perceptron Learning Law 118, 135 Quarter Plane Causal Model 75
Perceptron Model 135 Quarter Plane Causality 63, 64, 65, 70
Planar Graphs 32 Quarter-plane Causality, Half-plane Causality 62,
Plant and Measurement Noise 73 82
Plant Noise 72 Quaternion Based Neural Networks 135
Plant Noise Model 73
Point Wise Convergence 134 R
Polynomial 46, 49
Polynomial Representation 37, 40 Random Field 72
Polynomial Time Algorithms 57 Random Field Models 71
Polynomials 46, 47 Random Process 72
Polynomials, Power Series 55 Random Variable 72
Pontryagin Function 83, 87 Rational Functions 63
Positive Definite Symmetric Matrix 56, 57 Real Anti-symmetric One 97
Positive Definite Synaptic Weight Matrix 56 Real Connection Matrix 102
Power Spectrum 71 Real Mode 100
Preciseness 80 Real Numbers 120
Prediction 73 Real Part 97, 98, 99
Prime 43 Real Symmetric 97
Index 153
Real Valued Associative Memories 130 SISO Discrete Time, Linear Time Invariant
Real Valued Neural Networks 117 Systems 81
Real Valued Neuron 118 Solution of the Difference Equation 85
Real/Complex Valued Sequences 130 Space 32
Realistic Model 117 Space Representations 71
Realizable 83 Special Sets 55
Received Tensor 43, 53 Species 6
Received Tensor Word 50 Species of Living Systems 138
Received Word 45 Spectral Representation Theorem 72
Recursion 124 Spectral/Cholesky Type Decomposition 57
Redundancy 4 Sphere Packing Problem 45
Representation 38, 82 Stability 62
Reproduction 138 Stable 14, 30
Response Determination 70 Stable State 16, 20, 21, 22, 30, 40, 58, 92, 96,
Ring 120 97, 102, 104, 113, 115
Robots 3 Stable State of a Continuous Time 89
Roesser’s Model 64 Stable State of a Multidimensional Hopfield
Neura 86
S Stable States 17, 18, 19, 22, 80, 81, 91, 92, 108,
110, 113, 114
Samples 131 Stable States (Stable Functions) 5
Scalar Synaptic Weight 117 Stable States of a Hopfield Network 92
Second Order Models 64 Stable States of a Hopfield Neural Network 81
Separable Filters 64 Stable States of a Multidimensional Hopfield
Separating Line/Hyper Plane 132 Neural Network 82
Serial Mode 14, 20, 21, 22, 30, 96, 97, 99, 103, Stable States of a One Dimensional Neural
104 Network 81
Shannon 107 Stable States of Multidimensional Neural (Gener-
Sigmoid Function 134 alized) Network 91
Sign Structure 58 Stable States of Neural Network 81
Signal Design 122 Standard Theorems 55
Signal Design Problem 24 State 13, 31, 67, 95
Signed Integral Equation 123 State Coupling Tensor 67, 68, 82
Signum Function 105, 118, 120 State Equations 88
Signum or Sigmoid or Hyperbolic Tangent 133 State Estimation 73
Simulated Annealing 27 State Evolution 30
Single Input, Single Output 81, 113 State, Input 72
Single Input, Single Output Linear Time Invariant State of a Neuron 13
123 State of a Node 20
Single Layer 117, 121, 133 State of Neuron. 15
Single Layer Neural Network 81 State of Node 30
Single Layer of Perceptrons 118 State of the Dynamical System 68, 82
Single Layer Perceptron 117 State of the Network 14, 20, 30
Single Synaptic Weight 117 State of the Node 16
Single/Multi-Layer Continuous Time Neural State Response 109
Networks 125 State Space 22, 27, 30, 63, 74
State Space Description 61, 67, 82, 107, 108 Synaptic Weight Matrix 56, 124
State Space Description of a Dynamical System 75 Synaptic Weight Sequence Values 122
State Space Model 64 Synaptic Weights 13, 15, 20, 25, 97, 117, 118, 133
State Space Representation 58, 59, 61, 63, 65, Syndrome 41
66, 69, 73, 76, 82, 91 Synthesis 61, 62
State Space Representation Through Tensors 70 System 61
State Space Representations 72, 76 System Dynamics 75, 83, 87, 124
State Space Structure 69 System Theorists 63, 68
State Tensor 13 System Theory 66, 107
State Transition Tensor 71, 72, 88 System Theory Approach 107
State Transitions 74 Systematic Form 29
States of Neural Networks. 80 Systems 67, 139
Static 63 Systems Function 61
Static Optimization 23, 29, 54, 55
Static Optimization Problems 53
Static Systems 65, 70
T
Stochastic Control Theory 73, 76 Target Output 119, 122, 134
Stochastic Dynamic Programming 73 Tensor 11, 29, 32, 68
Stochastic Linear Systems 71 Tensor Algebra, 49, 76
Stochastic Models 72 Tensor Algebra Concepts 35
Stochastic Processes 71 Tensor Analysis 66
Stochastic Tensor 37 Tensor Based 29
Storage of Data 81 Tensor Based Difference/Differential Equations 76
Stress Tensor 67 Tensor Based Multivariate Polynomials 28
Structure of Optimal Control 110 Tensor Based State Space Representation 63
Structure of the local Optimum 86 Tensor Field 74
Structured Markov Random Field 71, 72, 73 Tensor Functions 74
Structured Markov Random Fields 71 Tensor Geometric Form 72
Sub-spaces 34 Tensor Inner Product (Outer Product) 35
Subsets of Multidimensional Lattice 19, 28 Tensor Linear Operator 34, 35, 62, 63, 65, 69, 76
Subsets of the Lattice 51 Tensor Linear Operators 62, 71, 76
Successive Approximation Procedure 123 Tensor Linear Space 36
Successive Approximation Scheme 123 Tensor Linear Spaces 59, 69, 70
Successive Input Functions 119, 134 Tensor of Partial Derivatives 76
Supervised Learning 135 Tensor of Probabilities of The States 71
Supervised Learning in a Function Space 135 Tensor Product 12, 48
Supervised Training 117 Tensor Products 46, 73, 76, 125, 135
Switching/Logic Functions 19 Tensor Products, Matrix Products 47
Symmetric 99 Tensor Spaces 28, 34
Symmetric Matrix 11, 20, 58, 95 Tensor State Space 82
Symmetric Tensor 10, 18, 23 Tensor State Space Description 69, 70
Synapse 117, 121 Tensor State Space Representation 62, 63, 66,
Synapses 117, 118, 126, 133 67, 68, 71, 72, 73, 76, 80, 82, 92
Synaptic Contribution 15 Tensor State Space Representations 68
Synaptic Weight 134, 135 Tensor-tensor Products 76
Synaptic Weight Function 121 Tensor-tensor Variables 70
Synaptic Weight Functions Tensors 10, 12, 38, 58, 62
118, 121, 125, 133, 134, 135 Terminal State 84
Index 155
Test Patterns 133 Type of Neighbourhood of States 19

The Common Thread of Neural Networks 91
The Nervous System 79
The Real and Imaginary Parts 98
U
The Time Varying Linear System 85 Unbounded Lattice 24
Theorems 28 Undirected Graph 57, 95
Theoretical Computer Science 56 Uni-variate Scalar Polynomial 52
Theory of Error Control Codes 45 Unification 80, 90, 92
Theory of Error Correcting Codes 39 Unification of Control 91
Theory of Multidimensional Neural Networks 28
Unified 81
Three Dimensional Array 125
Unified Theory 6, 92
Three Dimensional Scenes 129
Unified Theory of Control, Communication and
Three/Multidimensional Array 135
Computation 80, 126, 137
Threshold 13
Uniform Convergence 134
Threshold Value 29
Univariate 51
Thresholds 21, 29, 130, 135
Universe 1
Time Invariant Linear System 86
Unknown Tensor X 53
Time Series Model 73
Updating of the Function 99
Time Varying Synaptic Weight Matrix 123
Time Varying Systems 66
Time-invariant Systems 66 V
Topography 27
Topological 34 Various Recurrent Networks 120
Topological Features 138 Vector Space 120, 121
Total Output Energy 81, 108 Vector-matrix Variables 70
Trainability of Intelligence 138 Vector/Matrix Products 76
Training 138 Version 124
Training Example 119, 122
W
Training Phase 117
Training Samples 117, 133
Transfer Function 107
Weight Matrix 95, 97
Transformed Samples 132
Weight of a Cut 31
Transitions 19
Weighted and Undirected Non-planar Graph 30
Transmitted Tensor 43
Weighted Contribution 135
TSSR 73
Weighted Undirected Connectionist Structure 29
Two Dimensional Distributed System 75
Weights 119
Two Dimensional Euclidean Space 132
Weights are Complex 103
Two Dimensional Filter Theory 63
White As Well As Colored 73
Two Dimensional Neural Networks 10
Two Dimensional Signal Processing 75 White Noise 71
Two Dimensional State Space Models 63 Wiener 107, 137
Two Dimensional System Theory 75 Wiener and Kalman Filters 73
Two Possible States 13 Wyner 81, 122
Two/Multidimensional Logic Circuits 9
Two/Multidimensional Arrays 9 Z
Two/Multidimensional Neural Networks. 11
Two/Multidimensional System Theory 62, 76 Zero Mean Tensors 72
Two/Multidimensional Systems 63 Zurada 105

Multidimensional Neural Networks Unified Theory Rama Murthy - NEW AGE - 2007

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Multidimensional Neural Networks Unified Theory Rama Murthy - NEW AGE - 2007

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

This page

All rights reserved.

ISBN (13) : 978-81-224-2629-8

PUBLISHING FOR ONE WORLD

model of multidimensional neural networks and the associated convergence theorem. In

2. MULTI/INFINITE DIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS, MULTI/INFINITE

3. MULTI/INFINITE DIMENSIONAL CODING THEORY: MULTI/INFINITE

4. TENSOR STATE SPACE REPRESENTATION: MULTIDIMENSIONAL SYSTEMS 61

5. UNIFIED THEORY OF CONTROL, COMMUNICATION AND

6. COMPLEX VALUED NEURAL ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY ON THE COMPLEX HYPERCUBE 95

7. OPTIMAL BINARY FILTERS: NEURAL NETWORKS 107

8. LINEAR FILTER MODEL OF A SYNAPSE: ASSOCIATED NOVEL REAL/COMPLEX

8.5. N OVEL CONTINUOUS TIME ASSOCIATIVE MEMORY 122

9. NOVEL COMPLEX VALUED NEURAL NETWORKS 129

10. ADVANCED THEORY OF EVOLUTION OF LIVING SYSTEMS 137

theory. Currently, to explain the non-living universe, string model hopes to be

LOGICAL BASIS FOR COMPUTATION

LOGICAL BASIS FOR CONTROL

Faraday conducted the experiments related to electrical and magnetic phenomenon. He

LOGICAL BASIS OF COMMUNICATION

ADVANCED THEORY OF EVOLUTION

One dimensional logic theory is concerned with the study of static/dynamic

2.2 MATHEMATICAL MODEL OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS

A discrete time multidimensional neural network paradigm is a dynamical system evolving

Multidimensional Neural Networks: Tensors

is called a homogeneous linear form in the variables, the expression

is called a homogeneous quadratic form, the expression

With the above description of necessity of tensors to represent generalized/

Tensors, Tensor Products

Mathematical Model Description

2.3 CONVERGENCE THEOREM FOR MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL

Utilizing a fully symmetric tensor to represent the connection structure of a

= Sign (S ⊗ X(k ) − T ) (2.12)

0, if, Xi1,..., in (t) = Sign (Hi1,...,in (t))

+2, if, X i 1,..., in (t ) = −1, and, Sign ( H i 1,..., in (t ) = + 1

+ Si 1,..., in ; i 1,...,in ∆Xi 1,..., in − 2∆Xi 1,..., in Ti 1,..., in (2.15)

(a) if ∆X = 0 then it follows that ∆E = 0;

(b) if ∆X ≠ 0 , then ∆E = 0, only if the change in Xi 1,..., in (t) is from –1 to +1,

2.4 MULTIDIMENSIONAL LOGIC THEORY, LOGIC SYNTHESIS

Multidimensional Logic Synthesis

Thus, in the serial mode, the network converges to a stable state.

Lemma 2.1: Countable union of countable sets is countable.

Theorem 2.4: Let MN = (S, T) be an infinite dimensional neural network of order n/

2.6 NEURAL NETWORKS, LOGIC THEORIES, CONSTRAINED STATIC

Multidimensional neural networks provide a computational paradigm to determine the

networks. The interconnection structure weights are represented through a symmetric

Continuous Time Neural Networks

X(t) = Sign ( ∫ R(t , s) X( s) ds) (2.23)

Complex Neural Networks

Adaptive Neural Networks

multivariate polynomials (tensor based) over various subsets of the multidimensional

graphoid, the connection structure of a multidimensional neural network. In section 2, a

3.2 MULTIDIMENSIONAL NEURAL NETWORKS: MINIMUM CUT

A discrete time multidimensional neural network is a discrete time dynamical system

Let (i1,i2,...,in) = i,(j1,...,jn) = j. Let S + + denote the sum of weights of edges in MN

Graphoid Based Codes

 1 if an edge is incident between

3.3 MULTIDIMENSIONAL ERROR CORRECTING CODES: ASSOCIATED

A multidimensional linear codeword constellation is defined as the subspace of a tensor

multidimensional encoding/decoding algorithms is done by utilizing tensor algebra

Infinite Dimensional Codes

Multi/Infinite Dimensional Information Theory