--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Still more nonsense: as I have pointed out before, Hutter's implied > definitions of "agent" and "environment" and "intelligence" are not > connected to real world usages of those terms, because he allows all of > these things to depend on infinities (infinitely capable agents, > infinite numbers of possible universes, etc.). > > If he had used the terms "djshgd", "uioreou" and "astfdl" instead of > "agent", "environment" and "intelligence", his analysis would have been > fine, but he did not. Having appropriated those terms he did not show > why anyone should believe that his results applied in any way to the > things in the real world that are called "agent" and "environment" and > "intelligence". As such, his conclusions were bankrupt. > > Having pointed this out for the benefit of others who may have been > overly impressed by the Hutter paper, just because it looked like > impressive maths, I have no interest in discussing this yet again.
I suppose you will also dismiss any paper that mentions a Turing machine as irrelevant to computer science because real computers don't have infinite memory. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=78415405-5a614d
