You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

cousin_it comments on No coinductive datatype of integers - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: cousin_it 04 May 2011 04:37PM

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

Comments (138)

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

Comment author: cousin_it 05 May 2011 08:10:02AM *  1 point [-]

Thanks for pointing out the connection!

Comment author: Clippy 05 May 2011 04:56:19PM 3 points [-]

You're welcome! I'm always glad to learn when knowledge I've gained through paperclip maximization has value to humans (though ideally I'd want to extract USD when such value is identified).

I should add (to extend this insight to some ot the particulars of your post) that the probability distribution on the integers implicitly assumed by the unary encoding you described is that smaller numbers are more likely (in proportion to their smallness), as do all n-ary number systems. So-called "scientific" notation instead favors "round" numbers, i.e. those padded with zeros the soonest in the least-significant-digit direction.

Comment author: cousin_it 05 May 2011 05:15:28PM 2 points [-]

though ideally I'd want to extract USD when such value is identified

Your comments are often pleasant to read, but I don't pay USD for comments that are pleasant to read, and don't know anyone who does. Sorry.

Comment author: Clippy 05 May 2011 05:16:58PM 1 point [-]

Thanks. I didn't mean charging for comments, just that if I identified major insights, I could sell consulting services or something. Or become a professor at a university teaching the math I've learned from correct reasoning and paperclip maximizing. (Though my robot would need a lot of finishing touches to pass.)