I am not going in circles. I probably should not express myself in replies. I made a lot of mistakes getting to the conclusion that I got to, and I am a little uncertain as to whether the construction of the diagonal set actually means that there would be "uncountable" sets for this particular example, but that, for example, has nothing to do with anything that you said. Jim Bromer
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Abram Demski <abramdem...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jim, > > *sigh* My response to that would just be to repeat certain questions I > already asked you... I guess we should give it up after all. The best I can > understand you is to assume that you simply don't understand the relevant > mathematical constructions, and you've reached pretty much the same point > with me. I'd continue in private if you're interested, but we should > probably stop going in circles on a public list. > > --Abram > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Jim Bromer <jimbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The question was asked whether, given infinite >> resources could Solmonoff Induction work. I made the assumption that it was >> computable and found that it wouldn't work. It is not computable, even with >> infinite resources, for the kind of thing that was claimed it would do. (I >> believe that with a governance program it might actually be programmable) >> but it could not be used to "predict" (or compute the probability of) a >> subsequent string given some prefix string. Not only is the method >> impractical it is theoretically inane. My conclusion suggests, that the use >> of Solmonoff Induction as an ideal for compression or something like MDL is >> not only unsubstantiated but based on a massive inability to comprehend the >> idea of a program that runs every possible program. >> >> I am comfortable with the conclusion that the claim that Solomonoff >> Induction is an "ideal" for compression or induction or anything else is >> pretty shallow and not based on careful consideration. >> >> There is a chance that I am wrong, but I am confident that there is >> nothing in the definition of Solmonoff Induction that could be used to prove >> it. >> Jim Bromer >> *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
