On 24 Aug 2012, at 19:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/24/2012 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
And those theorem are non constructive, meaning that in the world
of inference inductive machine, a machine capable of being wrong is
already non computably more powerful than an error prone machine.
There's something wrong with that sentence. An error prone machine
one that is capable of being wrong, and hence non-computably more
powerful than itself?
Yes. It makes sense because the identification criteria for the
inductive inference has been weakened. A machine allowed to do one
error (that is synthesizing a program giving a wrong output) will
recognize a non computably vaster class of phenomena, even if wrong on
some input. See the paper of Case and Smith reference in my url, or
the book by Osherson, Stob, and Weinstein.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at