Matt,
> > >believe that you can control your thoughts and actions,
> >
> > I don't. Seems unlikely.
> >
> > > and fear death
> >
> > Some people accept things they cannot (or don't know how to) change
> > without getting emotional.
> >
> > >because if you did not have these beliefs you would not p
> Maybe it would be easy
> to rip out Cyc's upper ontology, and replace it by SUMO's,
> or v.v. I don't know ... I suspect its not, and that bothers
> me; that is a bit an important problem.
>
It would *not* be easy to do so, and this is a significant problem...
IMO, the whole approach of build
SOLOMONOFF MACHINES UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL
This is in response to Shane Leggs post of Fri 11/9/2007 9:40 AM and
Lukasz Stafiniaks posts of Fri 11/9/2007 7:13 AM and Fri 11/9/2007 12:09
PM.
==Preface
Here are a list of questions I have from reading these very helpful posts.
> From: Bryan Bishop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > I already have some basics of merging OOP and Group/Category Theory.
> > Am working on some ideas on jamming, or I should say intertwining
> > automata in that. The complexity integration still trying to figure
> > out... trying to stay as far from
On Friday 09 November 2007 20:01, John G. Rose wrote:
> I already have some basics of merging OOP and Group/Category Theory.
> Am working on some ideas on jamming, or I should say intertwining
> automata in that. The complexity integration still trying to figure
> out... trying to stay as far from
> From: Jef Allbright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 2) It is based on Sequential Interaction Machines, rather than
> > Multi-Stream Interaction Machines, which means it might lose out on
> > expressiveness as talked about here.
> >
> > http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/bcj1.pdf
>
> I beg
On 09/11/2007, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/8/07, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 08/11/2007, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This discussion reminds me of hot rod enthusiasts arguing passionately
> > > about how to build the best racing car, w
I recently got the chance to make an analogy between C++ and
upper ontologies. There is a well-known problem with OO-style
coding, and I think I have just seen this same problem manifest
itself in the so-called "upper ontologies"
One well-known problem with C++ is that begining coders often
sp
>
>
> > 2) It is based on Sequential Interaction Machines, rather than
> > Multi-Stream Interaction Machines, which means it might lose out on
> > expressiveness as talked about here.
> >
> > http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/pw/papers/bcj1.pdf
>
> I began to read the paper, but it was mostly incompre
On 11/8/07, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 08/11/2007, Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This discussion reminds me of hot rod enthusiasts arguing passionately
> > about how to build the best racing car, while denigrating any
> > discussion of entropy as outside the "pr
Jef,
The following is a direct cut and paste from you Fri 11/9/2007 2:46 PM
post to which I was responding in my Fri 11/9/2007 5:26 PM post, which you
unjustly flame in the email below.
==start of cut and paste from Jefs email===
> > MY COMMENT At Dragon System, then one of the w
On 11/9/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >JEF ##> Edward, can you explain what you might have meant by "based on
> the likelihood that the probability..."?
>
> ED ##> I think my statement -- "Dragon selected speech recognition word
> candidates based on the likelihood th
Jeff,
(to make it easier to know who is responding to whom, if any of this is
cut into postings by others I have inserted a > before JEF ##> to
indicate his comments occurred first in time.)
>JEF ##> Edward, can you explain what you might have meant by "based
on the likelihood that t
On 11/8/07, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ED >> Most importantly you say my alleged confusion between
> subjective and objective maps into my difficulty to grasp the significance
> of Solomonoff induction. If you could do so, please explain what you mean.
Given our signifi
On Nov 9, 2007 5:26 AM, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So are the programs just used for computing Kolmogorov complexity or are
> they also used for generating and matching patterns.
The programs do not compute K complexity, they (their length) _are_ (a
variant of) Kolmogorov comp
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 03:40:19PM +0100, Shane Legg wrote:
[...]
!
I haven't finished reading the thing, but I did notice some typos.
Page 8: defn 1.3.2 has a missing \mu; it should say
"... has the additional property \mu(\Omega)..."
and next sentence is also missing a \mu:
should say "...the
Thank you for your reply. I want to take some time and compare this with
the reply I got from Shane Legg and get back to you when I have more time
to think about it.
Edward W. Porter
Porter & Associates
24 String Bridge S12
Exeter, NH 03833
(617) 494-1722
Fax (617) 494-1822
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Hello Edward,
I'm glad you found some of the writing and links interesting. Let me try to
answer some of your questions.
> I understand the basic idea that if you are seeking a prior likelihood for
> the occurrence of an event and you have no data about the frequency of its
> occurrence -- absen
On Nov 9, 2007 5:26 AM, Edward W. Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ED ##>> what is the value or advantage of conditional complexities
> relative to conditional probabilities?
>
Kolmogorov complexity is "universal". For probabilities, you need to
specify the probability space and initial dist
19 matches
Mail list logo
