Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2007/iii/paper-73/3/e/solution

For the symmetric zero-diagonal weights and asynchronous rule just specified, update only unit . In the energy difference, terms involving neither nor its symmetric partner cancel. Thus asynchronous Hopfield energy descent gives
If the unit was already aligned, it does not change and . If it flips into alignment, , so
At our tie rule retains the old activity. The network has only configurations. Strict descent on every actual change prevents revisiting a configuration and permits only finitely many changes. With a fair schedule every misaligned unit is eventually updated, so the terminal configuration is a fixed point. At that point each possible single-bit flip has energy cost . The network reaches a minimum against single-unit changes, not necessarily the global minimum. Its energy is a Lyapunov function for these asynchronous dynamics.
The qualifications are essential to the printed claim. Synchronous updates can cycle: for two units with , the state alternates with , keeping energy . Symmetry alone therefore does not prove convergence under simultaneous updates.
Nor does the valid descent proof guarantee a global minimum. Consider four units with and all four cross-group weights equal to , symmetrically and with zero diagonal. The state has aligned fields and energy , so it is a strict single-flip local minimum. The all-positive state has energy . This explicit counterexample shows why local minima may trap retrieval even though the energy always descends under the stipulated rule.

New to topics? Read the docs here!