On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jim, what evidence do you have that Occam's Razor or algorithmic > information theory is wrong, > Also, what does this have to do with Cantor's diagonalization argument? AIT > considers only the countably infinite set of hypotheses. > > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > There cannot be a one to one correspondence to the representation of the shortest program to produce a string and the strings that they produce. This means that if the consideration of the hypotheses were to be put into general mathematical form it must include the potential of many to one relations between candidate programs (or subprograms) and output strings. ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
