Matt, I know this is a late response, but your statement there is odd. The halting problem is not algorithmically describable at all. It *does* have a simple description, but not an algorithmic one (ie, not one that can be completely captured by axioms). That is the whole point!
-Abram On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Dr. Matthias Heger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Text compression would be AGI-complete but I think it is >> still too big. >> The problem is the source of knowledge. If you restrict to >> mathematical >> expressions then the amount of data necessary to teach the >> AGI is probably >> much smaller. In fact AGI could teach itself using a >> current theorem prover. > > Goedel and Turing showed that theorem proving is equivalent to solving the > halting problem. So a simple measure of intelligence might be to count the > number of programs that can be decided. But where does that get us? Either > way (as as set of axioms, or a description of a universal Turing machine), > the problem is algorithmically simple to describe. Therefore (by AIXI) any > solution will be algorithmically simple too. > > If you defined AGI this way, what would be your approach? > > -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
