I made a remark about confusing a domain with the values that was wrong.  What
I should have said is that you cannot just treat a domain of functions or of
programs as if they were a domain of numbers or values and expect them to
act in ways that are familiar from a study of numbers.



Of course you can use any of the members of a domain of numbers or numerical
variables in evaluation methods, but when you try that with a domain of
functions, programs or algorithms, you have to expect that you may get some
odd results.



I believe that since programs can be represented by strings, the Solomonoff
Induction of programs can be seen to be computable because you can just
iterate through every possible program string.  I believe that the same
thing could be said of all possible Universal Turing Machines.  If these two
statements are true, then I believe that the program is both computable and
will create the situation of Cantor's diagonal argument.  I believe that the
construction of the infinite sequences of Cantor's argument can be
constructed through an infinite computable program, and since the program
can also act on the infinite memory that Solomonoff Induction needs,
Cantor's diagonal sequence can also be constructed by a program.  Since
Solomonoff Induction is defined so that it will use every possible program,
this situation cannot be avoided.



Thus, Solomonoff Induction would be both computable and it would produce
"uncountable" infinities of strings.  When combined with the problem of
ordering the resulting strings in order to show how the functions might
approach stable limits for each probability, since you cannot a priori
determine the ordering of the programs that you would need for the
computation of these stable limiting probabilities you would be confronted
with the higher order infinity of all possible combinations of orderings of
the trans infinite strings that the program would hypothetically produce.



Therefore, Solomonoff Induction is either incomputable or else it cannot be
proven to be capable of avoiding the production of trans infinite strings
whose ordering is so confused that they would be totally useless for any
kind of "prediction of a string based on a given prefix," as is claimed. The
system is not any kind of "ideal" but rather *a confused theoretical notion.
*

I might be wrong.  Or I might be right.

Jim Bromer



-------------------------------------------
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

Reply via email to