jimrandomh comments on What are you working on? April 2011 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (62)
The linked comment seems wrong - due to fuzzy language, ironically enough. The inner iff should be testing a counterfactual, not equality. That doesn't help with the infinite regress/computability issue, though.
Anyways, I've found a specific probability distribution of opponents that reads your source, checks for the presence of a sufficiently large number and makes playing PD against them reduce to the name-your-utility game. And I can transform any set of agents into a set of agents that is a Nash equilibrium, by prepending a test for whether the opponent is a member of that set, and cooperating if so.
I still don't know whether there's an optimal solution for PD against agents drawn from any really complex distribution like the Solomonoff prior, or against agents iteratively selected starting from the universal prior. I suspect I could construct degenerate Solomonoff-like priors that force it to have or not have an optimal solution.
I realized that yesterday when I first tried moving my examples into an actual compiler, and found that the language I'd chosen was not quite what I remembered, in ways that could be summarized as "the language is broken". So I suspect I'm going to be making up yet another a language. I'd rather not use notation loosely, though.
If you mean I should talk about Turing machines, no way. Compare the strength of what you can prove about a program that you take through a functional representation and various augmented SSA forms, to what you can prove about Turing machines, and the difference is enormous.
If so, how do you define the truth value of that counterfactual?