On 29/02/2008, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm an undergrad who's been lurking here for about a year. It seems to me that
many people on this list take Solomonoff Induction to be the ideal learning
technique (for unrestricted computational resources). I'm wondering what
justification
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:10 AM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keeping the same general shape of the system (trying to account for
all the detail) means we are likely to overfit, due to trying to model
systems that are are too complex for us to be able to model, whilst
trying
On 01/03/2008, Jey Kottalam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 3:10 AM, William Pearson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keeping the same general shape of the system (trying to account for
all the detail) means we are likely to overfit, due to trying to model
systems that are
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, Solomonoff induction needs infinite computational resources, so
this clearly isn't a justification.
see http://www.hutter1.net/ai/paixi.htm
The major drawback of the AIXI model is that it is uncomputable. To
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 5:23 PM, daniel radetsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
My thinking is that a more-universal theoretical prior would be a prior
over logically definable models, some of which will be incomputable.
I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about, but I assume that
I'm an undergrad who's been lurking here for about a year. It seems to me
that many people on this list take Solomonoff Induction to be the ideal
learning technique (for unrestricted computational resources). I'm wondering
what justification there is for the restriction to turing-machine models of
I am not so sure that humans use uncomputable models in any useful sense,
when doing calculus. Rather, it seems that in practice we use
computable subsets
of an in-principle-uncomputable theory...
Oddly enough, one can make statements *about* uncomputability and
uncomputable entities, using only
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm an undergrad who's been lurking here for about a year. It seems to me
that many people on this list take Solomonoff Induction to be the ideal
learning technique (for unrestricted computational resources). I'm wondering
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For instance, one can prove that even if x is an uncomputable real number
x - x = 0
But that doesn't mean one has to be able to hold *any* uncomputable number x
in one's brain...
This is a general theorem about
This is a general theorem about *strings* in this formal system, but
no such string with uncomputable real number can ever be written, so
saying that it's a theorem about uncomputable real numbers is an empty
set theory (it's a true statement, but it's true in a trivial
falsehood,
On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 1:14 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a general theorem about *strings* in this formal system, but
no such string with uncomputable real number can ever be written, so
saying that it's a theorem about uncomputable real numbers is an empty
set
--- Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm an undergrad who's been lurking here for about a year. It seems to me
that many people on this list take Solomonoff Induction to be the ideal
learning technique (for unrestricted computational resources). I'm wondering
what justification there is
Thanks for the replies,
On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not so sure that humans use uncomputable models in any useful sense,
when doing calculus. Rather, it seems that in practice we use
computable subsets
of an in-principle-uncomputable theory...
13 matches
Mail list logo
