On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Abram Demski <abramdem...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jim, > > This argument that you've got to consider recombinations *in addition to* > just the programs displays the lack of mathematical understanding that I am > referring to... you appear to be arguing against what you *think* solomonoff > induction is, without checking how it is actually defined... > > --Abram > > I mean this in a friendly way. (When I started to write "in a fiendly way," it was only a typo and nothing more.) Is it possible that it is Abram who doesn't understand how Solomonoff Induction is actually defined. Is it possible that it is Abram who has missed an implication of the defiinition because it didn't fit in with his ideal of a convenient and reasonable application of Bayesian mathematics? I am just saying that you should ask yourself this: is it possible that Abram doesn't see the obvious flaws because it obviously wouldn't make any sense vis a vis a reasonable and sound application of probability theory. For example, would you be willing to write to a real expert in probability theory to ask him for his opinions on Solomonoff Induction? Because I would be. Jim Bromer On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Abram Demski <abramdem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim, > > This argument that you've got to consider recombinations *in addition to* > just the programs displays the lack of mathematical understanding that I am > referring to... you appear to be arguing against what you *think* solomonoff > induction is, without checking how it is actually defined... > > --Abram > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The fundamental method of Solmonoff Induction is trans-infinite. >> Suppose you iterate through all possible programs, combining different >> programs as you go. Then you have an infinite number of possible programs >> which have a trans-infinite number of combinations, because each tier of >> combinations can then be recombined to produce a second, third, fourth,... >> tier of recombinations. >> >> Anyone who claims that this method is the "ideal" for a method of applied >> probability is unwise. >> >> Jim Bromer >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > > > -- > Abram Demski > http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ > http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
