On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Abram Demski <abramdem...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Jim, > > I think you are using a different definition of "well-defined" :). I am > saying Solomonoff induction is totally well-defined as a mathematical > concept. You are saying it isn't well-defined as a computational entity. > These are both essentially true. > > Why you might insist that program-space is not well-defined, on the other > hand, I do not know. > > --Abram I said: "does talk about the ""full program space,"" merit mentioning?" Solomonoff Induction is not "totally well-defined as a mathematical concept," as you said it was. In both of these instances you used qualifications of excess. "Totally," "well-defined" and "full." It would be like me saying that because your thesis is wrong in a few ways, your thesis is 'totally wrong in full concept space" or something like that. Jim Bromer > > > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Solomonoff Induction is not well-defined because it is either incomputable >> and/or absurdly irrelevant. This is where the communication breaks down. I >> have no idea why you would make a remark like that. It is interesting that >> you are an incremental-progress guy. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Abram Demski <abramdem...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Jim, >>> >>> >>> Saying that something "approximates Solomonoff Induction" doesn't have >>>> any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually >>>> represents. And does talk about the "full program space," merit >>>> mentioning? >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean here; Solomonoff induction and the full >>> program space both seem like well-defined concepts to me. >>> >>> >>> I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in >>>> computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how >>>> that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. >>> >>> >>> A polynom SAT would certainly be a major breakthrough for AI and >>> computation generally; and if the brain utilizes something like such an >>> algorithm, then AGI could almost certainly never get off the ground without >>> it. >>> >>> However, I'm far from saying there must be a breakthrough coming in this >>> area, and I don't have any other areas in mind. I'm more of an >>> incremental-progress type guy. :) IMHO, what the field needs to advance is >>> for more people to recognize the importance of relational methods (as you >>> put it I think, the importance of structure). >>> >>> --Abram >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Well I guess I misunderstood what you said. >>>> But, you did say, >>>> "The question of whether the function would be useful for the "sorts >>>> of things we keep talking about" ... well, I think the best argument that I >>>> can give is that MDL is strongly supported by both theory and practice for >>>> many *subsets* of the full program space. The concern might be that, so >>>> far, >>>> it is only supported by *theory* for the full program space-- and since >>>> approximations have very bad error-bound properties, it may never be >>>> supported in practice. My reply to this would be that it still appears >>>> useful to approximate Solomonoff induction, since most successful >>>> predictors >>>> can be viewed as approximations to Solomonoff induction. "It approximates >>>> solomonoff induction" appears to be a good _explanation_ for the success of >>>> many systems." >>>> >>>> Saying that something "approximates Solomonoff Induction" doesn't have >>>> any meaning since we don't know what Solomonoff Induction actually >>>> represents. And does talk about the "full program space," merit >>>> mentioning? >>>> >>>> I can see how some of the kinds of things that you have talked about (to >>>> use my own phrase in order to avoid having to list all the kinds of claims >>>> that I think have been made about this subject) could be produced from >>>> finite sets, but I don't understand why you think they are important. >>>> >>>> I think we both believe that there must be some major breakthrough in >>>> computational theory waiting to be discovered, but I don't see how >>>> that could be based on anything other than Boolean Satisfiability. >>>> >>>> Can you give me a simple example and explanation of the kind of thing >>>> you have in mind, and why you think it is important? >>>> >>>> Jim Bromer >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Abram Demski >>>> <abramdem...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jim, >>>>> >>>>> The statements about bounds are mathematically provable... furthermore, >>>>> I was just agreeing with what you said, and pointing out that the >>>>> statement >>>>> could be proven. So what is your issue? I am confused at your response. Is >>>>> it because I didn't include the proofs in my email? >>>>> >>>>> --Abram >>>>> >>>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Abram Demski >>> http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ >>> http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic >>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com/> >>> >> >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com/> >> > > > > -- > Abram Demski > http://lo-tho.blogspot.com/ > http://groups.google.com/group/one-logic > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com/> > ------------------------------------------- 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=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
