meta_ark comments on Expecting Beauty - Less Wrong

16 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 12 January 2008 03:00AM

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

Comments (6)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: meta_ark 30 April 2011 05:24:10AM 1 point [-]

I think you could use Kolgomorov complexity to define simple, for these purposes. That way replacing your formula with "5##" wouldn't make it any simpler, because the machine would still have to execute all those multiplicative operations.

How can we be sure we have the simplest explanation? We can't be sure, because new data could come in to make us change our minds. But given a finite amount like {1, 2, ...} we can still weight possible formulae by Kogomorov complexity and prefer the simpler hypothesis.

I think natural numbers is simpler in this case, because n is simpler to calculate than 2^n. As for {1, ...} I don't think we have enough information to locate a hypothesis.

I'm uncertain about what I've said, so please correct me if I'm wrong about anything.