Pei Wang wrote:
On Jan 13, 2008 7:40 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And, as I indicated, my particular beef was with Shane Legg's paper,
which I found singularly content-free.
Shane Legg and Marcus Hutter have a recent publication on this topic,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/jm81548387248180/
which is much richer in content.
Unfortunately, this paper is not so much "richer in content" as
"containing a larger number of words and formulae". It adds nothing to
the previous (poor quality) paper, falls into exactly the same pitfalls
as before, and repeats the trick of pulling an arbitrary mathematical
definition out of the hat without saying why this definition should
correspond with the natural or commonsense definition.
Any fool can mathematize a definition of a commonsense idea without
actually saying anything new.
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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=85625387-40ef44
