DanielLC comments on Positive Bias: Look Into the Dark - Less Wrong

45 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 August 2007 03:55AM

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

Comments (53)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Zuckaschnegge 21 May 2012 10:18:46AM 1 point [-]

I wonder why noone cares to mention Ockham's Razor in this situation. As already a couple of times mentioned, there are infinite rules possible to describe a finite set of numbers. thereby we can only start at the least restricting rule possible and work our way farther in until we get to a point where we are not able to find a set of numbers working for our rule, but not for the rule to find within a certain interval of time. thereby i start by saying its all numbers. obviously ill find a couple of pairs not matching the correct rule. ill then start trying whole numbers. after that i might try ascending numbers or at least a>b or b>c... the only important thing to do here is to find the simplest solution still possible.

So i actually wouldnt try finding anything thats not fitting my assumptions, since there would be way more sets not fitting my assumption and not fitting the solution.