Jim, Saying that something "approximates Solomonoff Induction" doesn't have any > meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually > represents. And does talk about the "full program space," merit mentioning? >
I'm not sure what you mean here; Solomonoff induction and the full program space both seem like well-defined concepts to me. I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in > computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how > that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. A polynom SAT would certainly be a major breakthrough for AI and computation generally; and if the brain utilizes something like such an algorithm, then AGI could almost certainly never get off the ground without it. However, I'm far from saying there must be a breakthrough coming in this area, and I don't have any other areas in mind. I'm more of an incremental-progress type guy. :) IMHO, what the field needs to advance is for more people to recognize the importance of relational methods (as you put it I think, the importance of structure). --Abram On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Well I guess I misunderstood what you said. > But, you did say, > "The question of whether the function would be useful for the "sorts of > things we keep talking about" ... well, I think the best argument that I can > give is that MDL is strongly supported by both theory and practice for many > *subsets* of the full program space. The concern might be that, so far, it > is only supported by *theory* for the full program space-- and since > approximations have very bad error-bound properties, it may never be > supported in practice. My reply to this would be that it still appears > useful to approximate Solomonoff induction, since most successful predictors > can be viewed as approximations to Solomonoff induction. "It approximates > solomonoff induction" appears to be a good _explanation_ for the success of > many systems." > > Saying that something "approximates Solomonoff Induction" doesn't have any > meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually > represents. And does talk about the "full program space," merit mentioning? > > I can see how some of the kinds of things that you have talked about (to > use my own phrase in order to avoid having to list all the kinds of claims > that I think have been made about this subject) could be produced from > finite sets, but I don't understand why you think they are important. > > I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in > computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how > that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. > > Can you give me a simple example and explanation of the kind of thing you > have in mind, and why you think it is important? > > Jim Bromer > > > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Abram Demski <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jim, >> >> The statements about bounds are mathematically provable... furthermore, I >> was just agreeing with what you said, and pointing out that the statement >> could be proven. So what is your issue? I am confused at your response. Is >> it because I didn't include the proofs in my email? >> >> --Abram >> > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Abram Demski http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic ------------------------------------------- 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
