= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on A Proof of Occam's Razor - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (121)
Well taking this to be true, it seems like we could even construct an ordering where we enumerate algorithms based on something that maps to inverse complexity, so this would prove the opposite of Occam's razor.
But I can't think of any such ordering, and I've got a proof kicking around in my head that there can be no such ordering, so this hunch is probably wrong.
Indeed there is no such ordering.
For any given inverse complexity, infinitely many algorithms have a lower inverse complexity. This seems to break any attempt to enumerate in that order, or assign decreasing nonzero probabilities that sum to 1.