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 complexity. The programs compute (predict) the environment. > > Does it require that the programs exactly match a current pattern being > received, or does it know when a match is good enough that it can be relied > upon as having some significance? > The programs are generally required to exactly match in AIXI (but not in AIXItl I think). But the "significance" is provided by the compression on representation of similar things, which favors the same sort of similarity in the future. > Can they run on massively parallel processing. I think they can... In AIXI, you would build a summation tree for the posterior probability. > > The Hutters expectimax tree appears to alternate levels of selection and > evaluation. Can the Expectimax tree run in reverse and in parallel, with > information coming up from low sensory levels, and then being selected based > on their relative probability, and then having the selected lower level > patterns being fed as inputs into higher level patterns and then repeating > that process. That would be a hierarchy that alternates matching and then > selecting the best scoring match at alternate levels of the hierarchy as is > shown in the Serre article I have cited so many times before on this list. > To be optimal, the expectimax must be performed chronologically from the end of the horizon (dynamic programming principle: close to the end of the time horizon, you have smaller planning problems -- less opportunities; from smaller solutions to smaller problems you build bigger solutions backwards in time). But the probabilities are conditional on all current history including "low sensory levels". (Generally, your comment above doesn't make much sense in the AIXI context.) > > ED######>> are these short codes sort of like Wolfram little codelettes, > that can hopefully represent complex patterns out of very little code, or do > they pretty much represent subsets of visual patterns as small bit maps. > It depends on reality, whether the reality supports Wolfram's hypothesis. Best Regards. ----- 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=63539823-b308a9
