On 10/21/2012 3:48 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
I worry a bit about the use of the word "all" in your remark.
>"All" is too big, usually, to have a single constructable measure!
>Why not consider some large enough but finite collections of
>programs, such as what would be captured by the idea of an
>equivalence class of programs that satisfy some arbitrary parameters
>(such as solving a finite NP-hard problem) given some large but
>finite quantity of resources?
> Of course this goes against the grain of Bruno's theology, but
>maybe that is what it required to solve the measure problem.:-) I
>find myself being won over by the finitists, such as Norman J.
This may well turn out to be the case. Also Juergen Schmidhuber has
investigated this under the rubrik of "speed prior".
How does Schmidhuber consider the physicality of resources?
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