On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Given those three assumptions, plus the NARS formula for revision, >> there is (I think) only one possible formula relating the NARS >> variables 'f' and 'w' to the value of 'par': the probability density >> function p(par | w, f) = par^(w*f) * (1-par)^(w*(1-f)). > > Why is this the only possible formula? Let's see... let's call the function we're looking for L(f,w). To satisfy NARS revision it must have the property L(f1,w1)*L(f2,w2)=L{ (w1*f1+w2*f2)/(w1+w2) , w1+w2 }. Taking f1=f2 and w1=w2, we have: L(f,w)^2=L{ (2*w*f)/(2*w) , 2*w} L(f,w)^2=L{ f, 2*w} That establishes that the function is exponential in w, but that's a far cry from proving the uniqueness of the formula I gave. I should not have asserted so boldly... --Abram ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=114414975-3c8e69 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com