Let's try this . . . .
In Universal Algorithmic Intelligence on page 20, Hutter uses Occam's razor
in the definition of .
Then, at the bottom of the page, he merely claims that "using as an
estimate for ? may be a reasonable thing to do"
That's not a proof of Occam's Razor.
= = = = = =
He also references Occam's Razor on page 33 where he says:
"We believe the answer to be negative, which on the positive side would show
the necessity of Occam's razor assumption, and the distinguishedness of
AIXI."
That's calling Occam's razor a necessary assumption and bases that upon a
*belief*.
= = = = = =
Where do you believe that he proves Occam's razor?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] Occam's Razor and its abuse
--- On Wed, 10/29/08, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hutter *defined* the measure of correctness using
simplicity as a component.
Of course, they're correlated when you do such a thing.
That's not a proof,
that's an assumption.
Hutter defined the measure of correctness as the accumulated reward by the
agent in AIXI.
-- 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
