Hi Hal,
>Unfortunately I still miss some of your posts because of the absence of a
>date stamp, my mailer puts them way at the top of my list since I save all
>of some categories of e-mail.
I'm really sorry. I *will* come back to Eudora one day
>Now I consider myself in favor of the idea
Hi Hal,
>These are some of the things I want to explore as a result of formulating
>my question re the UD.
>
>To start:
>
>1) Are you saying that the UD contains all other computations as data?
No. The UD is a program without data. It generates and executes all
computations. It "dovetails", i.e
Dear Bruno:
Unfortunately I still miss some of your posts because of the absence of a
date stamp, my mailer puts them way at the top of my list since I save all
of some categories of e-mail.
I found one from last week which I will respond to soon. However, here is
an addition to my latest re
Dear Bruno:
These are some of the things I want to explore as a result of formulating
my question re the UD.
To start:
1) Are you saying that the UD contains all other computations as data?
2) By your comment "You confuse computability and provability." I think you
mean the UD indeed contain
Hal Ruhl wrote:
>1) The UD proof of the object "all theorems" is complex because each step
>is a unique slice of progress towards some sub component of the target
>object thus all steps are different and there are a great many of them.
>
>2) The UD knows its proof is complex and since it is the
Dear Russell:
As simple as I can get the idea:
The UD [a simple FAS] - uses an incredibly complex proof [known by the UD
it to be elegant and incredibly complex] - to exhibit "all theorems" [an
object of extremely low complexity].
This does not work.
Hal
Dear Russell:
I think you miss what I am saying.
At 4/20/01, you wrote:
>I disagree. The UD will have a particular way of generating (or
>enumerating) the theorems of the FAS, such that it doesn't generate
>the same theorem twice.
The UD is [so it is said] generating all theorems. Some of thes
I disagree. The UD will have a particular way of generating (or
enumerating) the theorems of the FAS, such that it doesn't generate
the same theorem twice. However, that is not to say that the proofs it
generates are elegant, as other proof algorithms exist, which may
generate shorter proofs. I wo
Dear Russell:
To condense the idea the UD is generating the collection of strings by the
only path it has so the proof is automatically elegant.
It is also extremely complex.
Hal
Dear Russell:
The idea I am trying to exploit in my latest posts is that a deterministic
cascade means one that uses every ounce of inference in the FAS in every
possible way on all the current data at every single step of the
cascade. Each step is individually elegant and since deterministic
But if P(A)=B and P'(B)=C are elegant proofs, it is very unlikely for
P'(P(A))=C to be an elegant proof. This is what the dovetailer is
constructing - it is not possible to know whether the any particular
proof output by the UD is elegant, only that it must contain elegant
proofs since it is compr
Let me correct one little issue which I think helps to clarify what I am
saying. I add a comment on the universal dove-tailer.
1) Yesterday I said that the cascade 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, etc. was not
everywhere elegant. But I went outside my identification process for
"determinism" = "everyw
12 matches
Mail list logo
