Benja comments on A model of UDT with a concrete prior over logical statements - Less Wrong

43 Post author: Benja 28 August 2012 09:45PM

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

Comments (21)

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

Comment author: Benja 29 August 2012 01:49:28PM 0 points [-]

Um, I don't see value in excluding statements that have e.g. a forall-exists-forall-exists sequence of quantifiers at the outer level?

But yeah, there may well be some systematic bias, and I have no particular reason to believe that easier satisfiability of long disjunctive statements could not be the cause of such a bias... unfortunately, my insight isn't good enough to offer anything but guesses. As I said in the post, I'm really not sure whether this is a good choice of prior or not; the main point of having it is to have something concrete to think about, possibly as a stand-in for a better prior over the same set of "worlds".

Comment author: Incorrect 29 August 2012 03:56:10PM *  1 point [-]

Um, I don't see value in excluding statements that have e.g. a forall-exists-forall-exists sequence of quantifiers at the outer level?

I just wanted to show it seems possible to do better and that was easier to do considering only a subset of statements.

Comment author: Benja 29 August 2012 04:12:14PM 0 points [-]

Ah, ok.