2008/12/28 Philip Hunt <cabala...@googlemail.com>: > > Now, consider if I build a program that can predict how some sequences > will continue. For example, given > > ABACADAEA > > it'll predict the next letter is "F", or given: > > 1 2 4 8 16 32 > > it'll predict the next number is 64. (Whether the program works on > bits, bytes, or longer chunks is a detail, though it might be an > important detail.) > > Even though the program is good at certain types of sequences, it > doesn't do compression. For it to do so, I'd have to give it some > notation to build a compressed file and then uncompress it again. This > is a lot of tedious detail work and doesn't add to it's intelligence. > IMO it would just get in the way.
Furthermore, I don't see that a sequence-predictor should necessarily attempt to guess the next in the sequence by attempting to generate thre shortest possible Turing machine capable of producing the sequence (certainly humans don't work that way). If sequence-predictor uses this method and is good at predictinbg sequences, good; but if it uses anotherm ethod and is good at predicting sequences, it's just as good. What matters is a program's performance, not how it does it. -- Philip Hunt, <cabala...@googlemail.com> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html ------------------------------------------- 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=123753653-47f84b Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
