I got confused with the two kinds of combinations that I was thinking about. Sorry. However, while the reordering of the partial accumulation of a finite number of probabilities, where each probability is taken just once, can be done with a re algorithm, there is no re algorithm that can consider all possible combinations for an infinite set of probabilities. I believe that this means that the probability of a particular string cannot be proven to attain a stable value using general mathematical methods but that the partial ordering of probabilities after any finite programs had been run can be made, both with actual computed values and through the use of an a priori methods made with general mathematical methods - if someone (like a twenty second century AI program) was capable of dealing with the extraordinary complexity of the problem.
So I haven't proven that there is a theoretical disconnect between the desired function and the method. Right now, no one has, as far as I can tell, been able to prove that the method would actually produce the desired function for all cases, but I haven't been able to sketch a proof that the claimed relation between the method and the desired function is completely unsound. Jim Bromer On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, I might have been wrong about the feasibility of writing an algorithm > that can produce all the possible combinations of items when I wrote my last > message. It is because the word "combination" is associated with more than > one mathematical method. I am skeptical of the possibility that there is a > re algorithm that can write out every possible combination of items taken > from more than one group of *types* when strings of infinite length are > possible. > > So yes, I may have proved that there is no re algorithm, even if given > infinite resources, that can order the computation of Solomonoff Induction > in such a way to show that the probability (or probabilities) tend toward a > limit. If my theory is correct, and right now I would say that there is a > real chance that it is, I have proved that Solmonoff Induction is > theoretically infeasible, illogical and therefore refuted. > > Jim Bromer > ------------------------------------------- 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
