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.

Houshalter comments on Approximating Solomonoff Induction - Less Wrong Discussion

6 Post author: Houshalter 29 May 2015 12:23PM

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

Comments (45)

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

Comment author: Lumifer 02 June 2015 04:09:33PM 1 point [-]

There is a view that everything that works must be an approximation of the ideal Bayesian method.

You can reformulate many problems in the Bayesian framework. This does not mean that everything is an approximation of Bayesianism -- just like the ability to translate a novel into French does not mean that each novel is an approximation of a French roman.

Comment author: Houshalter 03 June 2015 04:28:14AM 0 points [-]

It's deeper than that. Bayesian probability theory is a mathematical law. Anything method that works must be computing an approximation of it. Just like Newtonian mechanics is a very close approximation of relativity. But they are not equivalent.

Comment author: Lumifer 03 June 2015 02:47:34PM 2 points [-]

Bayesian probability theory is a mathematical law.

That is not true. The Bayes equation is mathematically correct. A theory is much wider -- for example, Bayesians interpret probability as a degree of belief -- is that also a mathematical law? You need a prior to start -- what does the "mathematical law" say about priors?