Le 20-juin-06, à 01:18, Russell Standish a écrit :

> So we a need a name. Bitstrings is too specific, since we could also
> be referring to strings from other alphabets. The word description
> seems to fit the concept, and wasn't otherwise used in literature.


Why not saying just  "strings" then?  It works on all alphabet.
The term "Description" conveys the idea of finiteness, except in 
explicit infinite formal languages.





> Whereas I don't think it does. It can be applied in an absolute way
> (such as you refer) or in a relative subjective way (which is how I do
> it). In fact I make the point that absolute measures aren't meaningful
> - there just isn't an absolutely given UTM.


 From a recursive or computationalist standpoint there is. In particular 
"absolute measure" *can* be defined up to a constant.




> The dovetailing provides the simpler ensemble from which the specific
> computation is selected. This is right there in the first 
> [Schmidhuber] paper.

I don't see it.



> In the second paper, the dovetailing is assumed to run on an actual
> resource limited computer - hence the speed prior.


But that dovetailing is not related to the universal one. Which is all 
normal given that Schmidhuber does not base his reasoning on the 1-3 
distinction. His ensemble or his "great programmer" is thus enough for 
his purpose.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to