Matt Mahoney wrote:
Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
5) I have looked at your paper and my feelings are exactly the same as
Mark's .... theorems developed on erroneous assumptions are worthless.
Which assumptions are erroneous?
Marcus Hutter's work is about abstract idealizations of the process of
intelligence that are strictly beyond the bounds of computability in the
universe we actually live in.
The "erroneous assumptions" I spoke of are centered on his (and your)
misappropriation of words that already have other meanings (like
intelligence, behavior, optimal behavior, goal, agent, observation, and
so on): basically, if he were to claim to be proving mathematical facts
about entities that had nothing to do with the world, I would not fault
him, but he and you attach words to some of the mathematical constructs
that already have other meanings. That identification of terms is a
false assumption.
What happens after that is that you start to deploy the conclusions
derived from the math AS IF THEY APPLIED TO THE ORIGINAL MEANINGS OF THE
APPROPRIATED TERMS. So in that sense, you are basing your conclusions
on erroneous assumptions.
You know about the mathematical field called "Model Theory"? You know
about the mathematical concept of a "Ring"? Try walking around a toy
store talking about the airplane models as if they were the same as the
models in model theory. Try walking around a jewelers and coming to
conclusions about the engagement rings as if they were instances of
mathematical rings.
That would be stupid.
"Rings" and "Models" are appropriated terms, but the mathematicians
involved would never be so stupid as to confuse them with the real
things. Marcus Hutter and yourself are doing precisely that.
I rest my case.
Richard Loosemore
-----
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/?list_id=303
