On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 02:55:08PM -0500, Abram Demski wrote: > > Russel, > > I do not see why some appropriately modified version of that theorem > couldn't be proven for other settings. As a concrete example let's > just use Schmidhuber's GTMs. There would be universal GTMs and a > constant cost for conversion and everything else needed for a version > of the theorem, wouldn't there be? (I am assuming things, I will look > up some details this afternoon... I have the book you refer to, I'll > look at the theorem... but I suppose I should also re-read the paper > about GTMs before making bold claims...) > > --Abram >
IIRC, Schmidhuber's machines were non-prefix Turing machines. As such there may or may not be a probability distribution in the first place. Solomonoff's original proposal using universal Turing machine didn't work because the probability distribution could not be defined. If, however, a probility distribution could be defined, then it would probably end up being equivalent to the S-L universal prior. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
