On Nov 9, 2007 5:26 AM, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ED ## what is the value or advantage of conditional complexities
relative to conditional probabilities?
Kolmogorov complexity is universal. For probabilities, you need to
specify the probability space and initial distribution
Hello Edward,
I'm glad you found some of the writing and links interesting. Let me try to
answer some of your questions.
I understand the basic idea that if you are seeking a prior likelihood for
the occurrence of an event and you have no data about the frequency of its
occurrence -- absent
Thank you for your reply. I want to take some time and compare this with
the reply I got from Shane Legg and get back to you when I have more time
to think about it.
Edward W. Porter
Porter Associates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 03:40:19PM +0100, Shane Legg wrote:
[...]
!
I haven't finished reading the thing, but I did notice some typos.
Page 8: defn 1.3.2 has a missing \mu; it should say
... has the additional property \mu(\Omega)...
and next sentence is also missing a \mu:
should say ...then
On Nov 9, 2007 5:26 AM, Edward W. Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So are the programs just used for computing Kolmogorov complexity or are
they also used for generating and matching patterns.
The programs do not compute K complexity, they (their length) _are_ (a
variant of) Kolmogorov
Jeff,
(to make it easier to know who is responding to whom, if any of this is
cut into postings by others I have inserted a before JEF ## to
indicate his comments occurred first in time.)
JEF ## Edward, can you explain what you might have meant by based
on the likelihood that the
On 09/11/2007, Jef Allbright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/8/07, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/11/2007, Jef Allbright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This discussion reminds me of hot rod enthusiasts arguing passionately
about how to build the best racing car, while
On Friday 09 November 2007 20:01, John G. Rose wrote:
I already have some basics of merging OOP and Group/Category Theory.
Am working on some ideas on jamming, or I should say intertwining
automata in that. The complexity integration still trying to figure
out... trying to stay as far from
From: Bryan Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I already have some basics of merging OOP and Group/Category Theory.
Am working on some ideas on jamming, or I should say intertwining
automata in that. The complexity integration still trying to figure
out... trying to stay as far from
SOLOMONOFF MACHINES UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL
This is in response to Shane Leggs post of Fri 11/9/2007 9:40 AM and
Lukasz Stafiniaks posts of Fri 11/9/2007 7:13 AM and Fri 11/9/2007 12:09
PM.
==Preface
Here are a list of questions I have from reading these very helpful posts.
Maybe it would be easy
to rip out Cyc's upper ontology, and replace it by SUMO's,
or v.v. I don't know ... I suspect its not, and that bothers
me; that is a bit an important problem.
It would *not* be easy to do so, and this is a significant problem...
IMO, the whole approach of building
11 matches
Mail list logo
