Zack_M_Davis comments on Open Thread: December 2009 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: CannibalSmith 01 December 2009 04:25PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (263)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 03 December 2009 08:44:10PM 1 point [-]

Is there a proof anywhere that occam's razor is correct? More specifically, that occam priors are the correct priors. Going from the conjunction rule to P(A) >= P(B & C) when A and B&C are equally favored by the evidence seems simple enough (and A, B, and C are atomic propositions), but I don't (immediately) see how to get from here to an actual number that you can plug into Baye's rule. Is this just something that is buried in textbook on information theory?

On that note, assuming someone had a strong background in statistics (phd level) and little to no background in computer science outside of a stat computing course or two, how much computer science/other fields would they have to learn to be able to learn information theory?

Thanks to anyone who bites

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 03 December 2009 09:31:43PM 1 point [-]

I found Rob Zhara's comment helpful.

Comment author: Matt_Simpson 06 December 2009 07:02:13AM 0 points [-]

thanks. I suppose a mathematical proof doesn't exist, then.