On 14/01/2008, Pei Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Will, > > The situation you mentioned is possible, but I'd assume, given the > similar functions from percepts to states, there must also be similar > functions from states to actions, that is, > AC = GC(SC), AH = GH(SH), GC ≈ GH
Pei, Sorry I should have thought more. I would define the similarity of the functions that it is possible to be interested in as. St = F(S(t-1),P) That is the current state is important to what change is made to the state. For example a man coming across the percept "Oui, bien sieur," would change his state in a different way depending upon whether he was already fluent in french or not. This doesn't really change the rest of your argument, but I feel it is important. > Consequently, it becomes a special case of my "Principle-AI", with a > compound function: > AC = GC(FC(PC)), AH = GH(FH(PH)), GC(FC()) ≈ GH(FH()) > > Pei To be pedantic (feel free to ignore the following if you like): That would depend on whether the ≈ relation is exactly. If you assume it has the same meaning when used above there are possible meanings for it where the relation (FC ≈ FH & GC ≈GH) does not imply (GC(FC()) ≈ GH(FH())). Consider the meaning of ≈ x and y are similar because they can be transformed to a reference programs of a reference language of the same length + or - 20 bytes. This would mean the representation for GC(FC()) would be within + or - 40 bytes of GH(FH()). Which wouldn't be the same relation. A bit contrived I know, but as we are working on the theoretical side of things, this is the best example I could think of at short notice. Until I get a better feeling of my own definition, I can't really say much more that is really useful. Will ----- 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=85847138-e90417
