On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 02:40:04PM -0500, Abram Demski wrote: > > Russel, > > Hmm, can't we simply turn any coding into a prefix-free-coding by > prefacing each code for a GTM with a number of 1s indicating the > length of the following description, and then a 0 signaling the > beginning of the actual description? I am not especially familiar with > the prefix issue, so please forgive me if I am wrong...
Sure - but you also need to change the machine to recognise your code. > > Also, I do not understand why there would be reason to suspect that > the probability distribution, once properly defined, would turn out to > be equivalent to the S-L prior. GTMs can formally represent more > things than TMs, so why would those things not end up in the > probability distribution? > > --Abram Demski > Its been a while since I read Schmidhuber's papers, but I thought he was talking about machines that continuosly updated their output, but would eventually converge (ie for each bit i of the output, there was a time t_i after which that bit would not change). This seems to be a restriction on the notion of Turing machine to me, but not as restrictive as a prefix machine. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
