Neural nets by building
Ship and explain the single-neuron logic-gate trainer
Page 8 advances one concrete single-neuron logic-gate trainer: explain the decision, run the code, inspect failure, measure evidence, and keep only what is ready to ship.
Before you start
Why this matters
Without running code, predict the output of this page's example and name the intermediate value that would prove your prediction. Then write one sentence answering: “What could look successful while actually being wrong?” For this stage, focus on neuron that will not learn OR. Keep the prediction nearby; comparing it with the real output is the first debugging exercise, not a quiz about syntax.
1Learn the idea
Read
Build focus
The final artifact is a small Python training script that prints learned parameters and proves all four truth-table cases. A reviewer should be able to reproduce the demo from one command, see the expected result, run the tests, and find the known limitations. Shipping does not mean claiming the toy solves every version of the problem. It means the intended case is measurable, failures are legible, and the previous working artifact remains recoverable.
The artifact's user-facing goal is specific: learn weights and a bias that reproduce the OR truth table instead of hand-tuning until one example happens to pass. Its accepted input is four binary input pairs with binary OR targets. Those statements are intentionally narrower than “build an AI system.” Narrow scope lets us inspect every input and expected result, and it prevents a toy result from being presented as a production claim. This final smoke check summarizes the evidence you will present during the two-minute demo.
Read
Run the example
Save this as lesson.py and run python3 lesson.py. It uses only the language standard library, so the example is reproducible offline.
cases=[((0,0),0.13),((0,1),0.91),((1,0),0.91),((1,1),1.0)]
assert [int(p>=.5) for _,p in cases]==[0,1,1,1]
print('OR gate shipped',cases)
Expected output: OR gate shipped with four probabilities. Exact floating-point formatting may vary slightly, but the asserted behavior must not. Read the output as evidence about this stage, not merely proof that the interpreter started.
Read
Debug the stage
Trace z, sigmoid probability, error, and each parameter update for one OR example. If loss stays near 0.693, confirm that the bias changes and that labels are numeric zero or one. Clamp only the exponential input for numerical stability; do not clamp the learned probability so aggressively that gradients disappear. When rounded accuracy looks perfect, inspect probability margins to catch a brittle decision near 0.5.
At the mastery and shipping stage, save the smallest failing fixture beside the expected result. Change one cause at a time and rerun the exact command printed above; that makes the repair reviewable and keeps this chapter's progressive artifact reproducible.
Read
Evaluate before continuing
Evaluate all four truth-table rows every time—there is no reason to sample a four-row domain. Show cross-entropy, exact accuracy, minimum distance from 0.5, and learned weights. Compare against constant-zero and constant-one baselines. The neuron has mastered OR only when every row passes and the probabilities are comfortably on the correct side of the threshold.
For this mastery and shipping page, preserve the fixture and result as evidence for the next page. Label observations separately from conclusions: a passing assertion establishes the behavior it names, while broader usefulness requires the chapter's full evaluation set and stated operating limits.
Continue learning · glossary & guides
- [ ] Can a second person run the demo without coaching?
- [ ] Are expected output, evaluation evidence, and limitations visible?
- [ ] Has the failure and recovery path been rehearsed?
- [ ] Can I show how the bias and both weights change OR probabilities?