Re: [agi] How can you prove form/behaviour are disordered?

[Jean-Paul Van Belle]

Hi Matt
Re Halting/non-halting programs:
This try-out works fine for small values of {program length}. For large values 
the problem is essentially unsolvable, though I admit that you could get a fair 
feeling for the distribution by simulating a large number of randomly generated 
programs. The busy beaver sequence is (provably) the fastest growing number 
sequence... (I know because I tried looking for that once but the best I could 
come up was with what was apparently called the arrow notation.)
Re NL & pattern finding:
The problem arises with:
- Apples are (the forbidden :) fruit. My laptop is an apple. Therefore my 
laptop is (the forbidden) fruit.
- People have legs. Johnny the cripple is a person (a people?). Therefore...
- Eggs are white (or brown:). Yolk is in the egg. Therefore yolk is white.


>>> Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/08/07 9:24 PM >>>
What is the shortest C program that does not halt?  Here are some 136 bit
programs:
What is the shortest halting program in Java?  I can find 2916 programs of
length 360 bits, but nothing shorter, for example:

- Frogs are green.  Kermit is a frog.  Therefore Kermit is green.
- Cities have tall buildings.  New York is a city.  Therefore New York has
tall buildings.
- Summers are hot.  July is in the summer.  Therefore July is hot.


-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] Books

[Matt Mahoney]

--- "YKY (Yan King Yin)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6/7/07, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Pattern Recognition, Third Edition (Hardcover)
> > by Sergios Theodoridis (Author), Konstantinos Koutroumbas (Author)

> I have this one too, but the question is, how to apply pattern recognition
> in a logic-based setting?

The problem of logical reasoning in natural language is a pattern recognition
problem (like natural language recognition in general).  For example:

- Frogs are green.  Kermit is a frog.  Therefore Kermit is green.
- Cities have tall buildings.  New York is a city.  Therefore New York has
tall buildings.
- Summers are hot.  July is in the summer.  Therefore July is hot.

After many examples, you learn the pattern and you can solve novel logic
problems of the same form.  Repeat for many different patterns.



-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] How can you prove form/behaviour are disordered?

[Matt Mahoney]

--- Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems you could get fairly accurate approximations of Omega for other
> languages like C using this approach.  For example, there is (AFAIK) only
> one
> C program of length 64 bits or less that halts:
> 
>   main(){}
> 
> and you could possibly prove upper bounds on longer programs.  Here are some
> halting programs of length 72 bits:
> 
>   ;main(){}
>   main(){;}
>   main(){};
>main(){}
>   main (){}
>   main( ){}
>   main() {}
>   main(){ }
>   main(){}
> 
> and others replacing the space with any of the ASCII codes 9, 10, 11, 12, or
> 13 (at least for gcc).  That is 39 (unless I missed some).

Here are 53 more:

  main(_)(){}
  main(a)(){}
  main(b)(){}
  ...
  main(Z)(){}

How many halting C programs are there of length 80 bits?

> What is the shortest C program that does not halt?  Here are some 136 bit
> programs:
> 
>   main(){while(1);}
>   main(){a:goto a;}
> 
> And a 128 bit program:
> 
>   main(){for(;;);}
> 
> The following 120 bit program might run forever in some implementations:
> 
>   main(){main();}

This halts when compiled with gcc -O (stack overflow but no apparent error)
but not with -O2 or higher.  Compiling with -S shows that the tail recursion
is optimized into a loop.


-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] Books

[YKY (Yan King Yin)]

On 6/7/07, Lukasz Stafiniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Reasoning about Uncertainty (Paperback)
by Joseph Y. Halpern

BTW, the .chm version of this book can be easily obtained on the net, as are
many others you listed...
I also recommand J Pearl's 2 books (Probabilistic Reasoning and Causality).


Pattern Recognition, Third Edition (Hardcover)
by Sergios Theodoridis (Author), Konstantinos Koutroumbas (Author)

I have this one too, but the question is, how to apply pattern recognition
in a logic-based setting?


Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in
Artificial Intelligence)
by Ronald Brachman (Author), Hector Levesque (Author)

A very good intro for anyone interested in logic-based AI.  Two of the main
points are:  don't reinvent the wheel of KR;   the tradeoff between KR
expressiveness and efficiency of inference.


Learning Kernel Classifiers: Theory and Algorithms (Adaptive
Computation and Machine Learning) (Hardcover)
by Ralf Herbrich (Author)

I don't know how kernel methods can be applied in a logic-based setting.
The math level of this one is also quite beyond me.


Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought (Bradford Books) (Paperback)
by Peter Gärdenfors (Author)


I forgot what this book was about, will check it out again.  Did you know
that Gardenfors is very influential in the logic-based belief revision
theory, the "AGM" (G=him) postulates?

I'm not aware of any book on pattern recognition with a view on AGI, except
*The Pattern Recognition Basis of Artificial Intelligence* by Don Tveter
(1998):
http://www.dontveter.com/basisofai/basisofai.html

You may look at *The Cambridge Hankbook of Thinking and Reasoning* first,
especially the chapters on "similarity" and "analogy".

YKY

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[YKY (Yan King Yin)]

On 6/8/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I noticed a serious problem with "credit attribution" and allowing members

to "branch outside" of the mother project.


For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many

members, that is worth $C in the consortium.  Suppose someone decides to
start an external project, then adding $c of new contributions to it, but
where $c is unknown because it's outside the consortium's attributing
system.  Then, suppose the new project sells a million copies and earns
$NetProfit.  $NetProfit may be a very big amount because of leverage /
nonlineae effects.


The *fair* amount to pay back the consortium should be $PayBack =

$NetProfit * ($C / ($C + $c)).  Unfortunately, $c occurs outside the
consortium and cannot be measured easily or consistently.  Not being to
estimate the $PayBack, the whole scheme is thrown into question.  Also,
using an approximate formula for $PayBack may not work since people will try
to exploit the approximation to their advantage.


It seems that allowing members to "check out" is very difficult, if not

impossible, to manage.  The only alternative that's left is to restrict
members to participate and develop projects within the consortium
*exclusively*...  but this will turn off many people as they don't see why
the consortium will win instead of other projects...  and this is the
problem faced by all AGI founders trying to recruit...


After some thinking, there may be a solution to this problem, which is to
let members estimate $c as well.  In other words, let them estimate how much
of a particular branch is completed as a percentage.  So if someone wants to
"check out", he'll agree to pay with shares of his new project equal to that
percentage.

Being optimistic again, there're reasons to believe that most members will
try to give fair and accurate estimations.  (Think:  if you have contributed
something, it'd be in your best interest to give accurate estimates rather
than exaggerate or depreciate them).

Notice that this scheme is more likely to work with a high number of
participants, but may fail when there are very few contributors to a
particular branch -- but this is OK because *any* serious AGI project has to
be large-scale anyway.

YKY

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] How can you prove form/behaviour are disordered?

[Matt Mahoney]

--- Shane Legg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 6/8/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > "The author has received reliable information, from a Source who wishes to
> > > remain anonymous, that the decimal expansion of Omega begins
> > >
> > > Omega = 0.998020554253273471801908..."
> >
> > For which choice of universal Turing machine?
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually  0.00787499699781238...
> 
> At least when based on the Turing machine described here:
> 
> http://www.emis.de/journals/EM/expmath/volumes/11/11.3/Calude361_370.pdf
> 
> Shane

It seems you could get fairly accurate approximations of Omega for other
languages like C using this approach.  For example, there is (AFAIK) only one
C program of length 64 bits or less that halts:

  main(){}

and you could possibly prove upper bounds on longer programs.  Here are some
halting programs of length 72 bits:

  ;main(){}
  main(){;}
  main(){};
   main(){}
  main (){}
  main( ){}
  main() {}
  main(){ }
  main(){}

and others replacing the space with any of the ASCII codes 9, 10, 11, 12, or
13 (at least for gcc).  That is 39 (unless I missed some).  I think with some
work you could prove about 66 bits of Omega_C:

  .0100

or 20 decimal digits:

  .0005

What is the shortest C program that does not halt?  Here are some 136 bit
programs:

  main(){while(1);}
  main(){a:goto a;}

And a 128 bit program:

  main(){for(;;);}

The following 120 bit program might run forever in some implementations:

  main(){main();}

What is the shortest halting program in Java?  I can find 2916 programs of
length 360 bits, but nothing shorter, for example:

  class _{public static void main(String[]$){}}

unless you count programs that throw exceptions as legal, in which case you
can have 72 bits:

  class x{}


-- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[Jean-Paul Van Belle]

Well-said Samantha :-)

On a different note: something YKY and Mark may want to read about a
possible approach to running a new AGI consortium: eXtreme Research. A
software methodology for applied research: eXtreme Researching vy
Olivier Chirouze, David Cleary and George G. Mitchell (Software.
Practice & Experience 2005; 35:1441–1454 - try to get it from
www.interscience.wiley.com). Some interesting ideas on building up
research ideas & prototypes & systems from the ground up with a
distributed group.



>>> "Samantha Atkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/08/07 7:01 PM >>>
But I don't expect any great understanding about Open Source here.   It
is
not the expertise or prime interest of the group.

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[Samantha Atkins]

Really Open Source software projects almost never have a total open door
policy on the contributions that are accepted.   There is usually a small
group that determines whether contributed changes are good enough and fit
the overall project goals and architecture well enough.

Wikipedia is one of the best innovations in information aggregation ever.  I
think many of us are very happy that it exists and use it extensively.  It
does work to filter wheat from chaff over time.

Claiming most Open Source is me-too knock-offs is simply wrong.  Apache and
many of its subprojects took the market by storm because it is significantly
better than the closed source solutions it replaced for one example among
many.

You understand that Mozilla is open source right?   Most of the innovation
we enjoy in Firefox today came long after Netscape days and long after
lingering Netscape/AOL control.

But I don't expect any great understanding about Open Source here.   It is
not the expertise or prime interest of the group.


On 6/8/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


 from http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=696

Bruce Sterling: All blogs will die by 
2018

   - *Date*: June 5th, 2007
   - *Blogger*: The Trivia Geek

 Security expert and tech curmudgeon Bruce Sterling famously quipped at
this year's South-by-Southwest conference that "I don't think there will
be that many [blogs] around in 10 years.
I think they are a passing thing." This got the blogosphere all 
a-twitter(ahem), but I think enough time has 
passed that we can look past this
ill-worded point from Sterling's SXSW rant and get to the real moneyline:

"You are never going to see a painting by committee that is a *great*painting."

And he's right. This was Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia–and to the
"wisdom of crowds" fad sweeping the Web 2.0 pitch sessions of Silicon
Valley–but it's also a fair assessment of what holds most (not all) open
source enterprises back: *Lack of vision*.

Nearly all great innovation comes from a singular vision pursued doggedly
until it achieves success. Apple is a great example of this, as the company
didn't really resume its cutting-edge status (for better or worse) until
Steve Jobs returned, and gave us the iMac and iPod (for better or worse).
And say what you will about Microsoft, but it was Bill Gates singular vision
for Windows and the software industry that drove his company to its
excess…er, success.

Opening your project up to an unreliable parade of volunteer contributors
allows for a great, lowest-common-denominator consensus product. That's fine
for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't count on any grand intellectual discourse
arising therein. Same goes for most software developed by this method–almost
all the great open source apps are me-too knockoffs of innovative
proprietary programs, and those that are original were almost always created
under the watchful eye of a passionate, insightful overseer or organization.
Firefox is actually *Mozilla* Firefox, after all.
--
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;



-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[J Storrs Hall, PhD]

Sure. Successful and innovative aren't the same thing -- in fact, they're 
often at odds. The best versions of something from the point of polish and 
usability generally come after lots of hard experience with its earlier 
versions.

Bell Labs, where Unix came from originally, was very academe-like and Unix was 
the product of a small, focussed group. Windowing systems came from places 
like MIT-AI and Xerox PARC.

Josh

On Friday 08 June 2007 12:50:16 pm Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Apache and its various offshoots?  Linux itself?  KDE?  JBoss and its
> subprojects?  Hibernate?  None of these came from some academic thesis work
> and all are wildly successful.  So I do not agree with the characterization
> of Open Source.

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[Samantha Atkins]

Apache and its various offshoots?  Linux itself?  KDE?  JBoss and its
subprojects?  Hibernate?  None of these came from some academic thesis work
and all are wildly successful.  So I do not agree with the characterization
of Open Source.

- s

On 6/8/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Friday 08 June 2007 08:21:28 am Mark Waser wrote:
> Opening your project up to an unreliable parade of volunteer
contributors
allows for a great, lowest-common-denominator consensus product. That's
fine
for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't count on any grand intellectual discourse
arising therein. Same goes for most software developed by this
method-almost
all the great open source apps are me-too knockoffs of innovative
proprietary
programs, and those that are original were almost always created under the
watchful eye of a passionate, insightful overseer or organization. Firefox
is
actually Mozilla Firefox, after all.

This is basically right. There are plenty of innovative Open Source
programs
out there, but they are typically some academic's thesis work. Being Open
Source can allow them to be turned into solid usable applications, but it
can't create them in the first place.

Josh

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;



-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[YKY (Yan King Yin)]

I noticed a serious problem with "credit attribution" and allowing members
to "branch outside" of the mother project.

For example, there may be a collection of contributions, from many members,
that is worth $C in the consortium.  Suppose someone decides to start an
external project, then adding $c of new contributions to it, but where $c is
unknown because it's outside the consortium's attributing system.  Then,
suppose the new project sells a million copies and earns $NetProfit.
$NetProfit may be a very big amount because of leverage / nonlineae effects.

The *fair* amount to pay back the consortium should be $PayBack = $NetProfit
* ($C / ($C + $c)).  Unfortunately, $c occurs outside the consortium and
cannot be measured easily or consistently.  Not being to estimate the
$PayBack, the whole scheme is thrown into question.  Also, using an
approximate formula for $PayBack may not work since people will try to
exploit the approximation to their advantage.

It seems that allowing members to "check out" is very difficult, if not
impossible, to manage.  The only alternative that's left is to restrict
members to participate and develop projects within the consortium
*exclusively*...  but this will turn off many people as they don't see why
the consortium will win instead of other projects...  and this is the
problem faced by all AGI founders trying to recruit...

YKY

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

RE: [agi] Get your money where your mouth is

[Derek Zahn]

Josh writes:> http://www.netflixprize.com
Thanks for bringing this up!  I had heard of it but forgot about it.  While I 
read about other people's projects/theories and build a robot for my own 
project, this will be a fun way to refresh myself on statistical machine 
learning techniques and statistics.  I downloaded the data and it looks pretty 
easy to work with.  See ya on the leaderboard :)
 

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

[agi] Japanese Bionic Baby

[James Ratcliff]

Nice article for robotics and possibly step to creating a humanoid agi

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2191447/boffins-create-bionic-baby

http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=1591
has more pics and videos

James Ratcliff

   
-
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. 

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[Lukasz Stafiniak]

On 6/8/07, J Storrs Hall, PhD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

This is basically right. There are plenty of innovative Open Source programs
out there, but they are typically some academic's thesis work. Being Open
Source can allow them to be turned into solid usable applications, but it
can't create them in the first place.


Being Closed Source can't create them neither (just a note for the
sake of completeness).

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[J Storrs Hall, PhD]

On Friday 08 June 2007 08:21:28 am Mark Waser wrote:
> Opening your project up to an unreliable parade of volunteer contributors 
allows for a great, lowest-common-denominator consensus product. That's fine 
for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't count on any grand intellectual discourse 
arising therein. Same goes for most software developed by this method-almost 
all the great open source apps are me-too knockoffs of innovative proprietary 
programs, and those that are original were almost always created under the 
watchful eye of a passionate, insightful overseer or organization. Firefox is 
actually Mozilla Firefox, after all.

This is basically right. There are plenty of innovative Open Source programs 
out there, but they are typically some academic's thesis work. Being Open 
Source can allow them to be turned into solid usable applications, but it 
can't create them in the first place.

Josh

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[Mark Waser]

On 6/8/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Actually, it should be On 6/8/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted 
someone else as saying:


I don't agree with Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia since I don't believe 
that a relatively unified vision is necessary for it.  I do, however, agree 
with his belief that a "kitchen sink" mentality is extremely detrimental to 
most open sources enterprises -- and would likewise be a problem for the AGI 
consortium.  I think that some sort of focus and *some* limitations on what 
is considered on-topic for the project is necessary for effectiveness.


I'm tempted to assume that you agree with your "a smart mind is an 
integrated mind" comment.



-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] How can you prove form/behaviour are disordered?

[J Storrs Hall, PhD]

Unfortunately, it wasn't an open Source ...

On Thursday 07 June 2007 10:52:03 pm Matt Mahoney wrote:
> 
> --- "J Storrs Hall, PhD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "The author has received reliable information, from a Source who wishes to 
> > remain anonymous, that the decimal expansion of Omega begins
> > 
> > Omega = 0.998020554253273471801908..."
> 
> For which choice of universal Turing machine?

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] AGI Consortium

[Lukasz Stafiniak]

On 6/8/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


"You are never going to see a painting by committee that is a great
painting."

And he's right. This was Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia–and to the
"wisdom of crowds" fad sweeping the Web 2.0 pitch sessions of Silicon
Valley–but it's also a fair assessment of what holds most (not all) open
source enterprises back: Lack of vision.


Every project has some "developers recruitment policy"; a smart mind
is an integrated mind. The ideological divide goes between Open
Knowledge and Source, and Closed Knowledge and Source.

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

[agi] AGI Consortium

[Mark Waser]

from http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=696

Bruce Sterling: All blogs will die by 2018
  a.. Date: June 5th, 2007 
  b.. Blogger: The Trivia Geek 
Security expert and tech curmudgeon Bruce Sterling famously quipped at this 
year's South-by-Southwest conference that "I don't think there will be that 
many [blogs] around in 10 years. I think they are a passing thing." This got 
the blogosphere all a-twitter (ahem), but I think enough time has passed that 
we can look past this ill-worded point from Sterling's SXSW rant and get to the 
real moneyline:

"You are never going to see a painting by committee that is a great painting." 

And he's right. This was Sterling's indictment of Wikipedia-and to the "wisdom 
of crowds" fad sweeping the Web 2.0 pitch sessions of Silicon Valley-but it's 
also a fair assessment of what holds most (not all) open source enterprises 
back: Lack of vision.

Nearly all great innovation comes from a singular vision pursued doggedly until 
it achieves success. Apple is a great example of this, as the company didn't 
really resume its cutting-edge status (for better or worse) until Steve Jobs 
returned, and gave us the iMac and iPod (for better or worse). And say what you 
will about Microsoft, but it was Bill Gates singular vision for Windows and the 
software industry that drove his company to its excess.er, success.

Opening your project up to an unreliable parade of volunteer contributors 
allows for a great, lowest-common-denominator consensus product. That's fine 
for Wikipedia, but I wouldn't count on any grand intellectual discourse arising 
therein. Same goes for most software developed by this method-almost all the 
great open source apps are me-too knockoffs of innovative proprietary programs, 
and those that are original were almost always created under the watchful eye 
of a passionate, insightful overseer or organization. Firefox is actually 
Mozilla Firefox, after all.

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e

Re: [agi] How can you prove form/behaviour are disordered?

[Shane Legg]

On 6/8/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


"The author has received reliable information, from a Source who wishes to
> remain anonymous, that the decimal expansion of Omega begins
>
> Omega = 0.998020554253273471801908..."

For which choice of universal Turing machine?




It's actually  0.00787499699781238...

At least when based on the Turing machine described here:

http://www.emis.de/journals/EM/expmath/volumes/11/11.3/Calude361_370.pdf

Shane

-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e