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.

Strilanc comments on More "Stupid" Questions - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: NancyLebovitz 31 July 2013 09:18AM

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

Comments (495)

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

Comment author: Strilanc 01 August 2013 01:06:39PM 2 points [-]

In order for the prior probabilities you assign to programs to be well-formed, they must limit to 0 as the length of the program goes to infinity. Otherwise the probabilities won't add up to 1.

No matter what prior you choose, you'll always end up with a variant of Occam's Razor where programs beyond a particular length are always assigned very low probabilities.

You don't necessarily have to decrease proportionally to 2^(-length), instead of say 3^(-length) or 1/Ackermann(length), like the Solomonoff prior does. However, since each additional bit lets you identify a value from a space that's twice as big (i.e. the precision grows like 2^length), it seems like a natural choice to penalize by that much.

(Personally, I prefer a prior that also lightly penalizes for running time. That removes computability issues and makes the induction approximable by dove-tailing.)