= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
private_messaging comments on Understanding and justifying Solomonoff induction - 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 (75)
Yeah, people get quite deeply confused by references to Occam's razor, "length of programs", and other such stuff.
If you only consider the programs of length N bits, approximately 2^(N-M) programs will have an output sequence forever identical to that of a program that can be minimally written in M<N bits.
Other confusion is with regards to how Solomonoff Induction would learn the program of length ~N from getting N bits of input. No it wouldn't - you can write in a small number of bits a program that outputs BB(20) zeroes, then a string of ones, and until you read over BB(20) input bits you won't learn a thing.