Hal Finney wrote:
> That would be true IF you include descriptions that are infinitely long.
> Then the set of all descriptions would be of cardinality c.  If your
> definition of a description implies that each one must be finite, then the
> set of all of them would have cardinality aleph-zero.
> What Russell wrote was that the set of all descriptions could be computed
> in c time on an ordinary Universal Turing Machine.  My question is, does
> it make sense to speak of a machine computing for c steps; it seems like
> asking for the "c"th integer.

The descriptions in the Schmidhuber ensemble are infinite in length.

At this stage, I see no problem in talking about machines computing c
steps, but obviously others (such as Schmidguber) I know would
disagree. Its like asking for the "c"th real number, rather than the
"c"th integer, if you like.

I'm not sure what the connection is with this non-standard model of
computation and others such as Malament-Hogarth machines (sp?)


A/Prof Russell Standish                  Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         Fax   9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia                                [EMAIL PROTECTED]             
Room 2075, Red Centre                    http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

Reply via email to