ocr-fork comments on Metaphilosophical Mysteries - Less Wrong

35 Post author: Wei_Dai 27 July 2010 12:55AM

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

Comments (255)

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

Comment author: ocr-fork 30 July 2010 12:23:53AM *  0 points [-]

Oh.

I feel stupid now.

EDIT: Wouldn't it also break even by predicting the next Busy Beaver number? "All 1's except for BB(1...2^n+1)" is also only slightly less likely. EDIT: I feel more stupid.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 30 July 2010 12:40:04AM *  0 points [-]

The next number in the sequence is BB(2^(n+1)), not BB(2^n+1).

ETA: In case more explanation is needed, it takes O(2^n) more bits to computably describe BB(2^(n+1)), even if you already have BB(2^n). (It might take O(2^n) more bits to describe BB(2^n+1) as well, but I wasn't sure so I used BB(2^(n+1)) in my example instead.)

Since K(BB(2^(n+1)) | BB(2^n)) > 100 for large n, AIXI actually will not bet on 0 when BB(2^(n+1) comes around, and all those 0s that it does bet on are simply "wasted".

Comment author: ocr-fork 30 July 2010 01:28:34AM 0 points [-]

it might take O(2^n) more bits to describe BB(2^n+1) as well, but I wasn't sure so I used BB(2^(n+1)) in my example instead.

You can find it by emulating the Busy Beaver.