re:Re: "Everything" need a little more than 0 information

From: Marchal Bruno <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 12:08:42 +0100 (MET)

Russell Standish wrote:

>Hal Finney wrote:
>>
>> That would be true IF you include descriptions that are infinitely long.
>> Then the set of all descriptions would be of cardinality c. If your
>> definition of a description implies that each one must be finite, then the
>> set of all of them would have cardinality aleph-zero.
>>
>> What Russell wrote was that the set of all descriptions could be computed
>> in c time on an ordinary Universal Turing Machine. My question is, does
>> it make sense to speak of a machine computing for c steps; it seems like
>> asking for the "c"th integer.
>
>The descriptions in the Schmidhuber ensemble are infinite in length.


The computations are infinite, but descriptions are supposed to be finite.

>
>At this stage, I see no problem in talking about machines computing c
>steps, but obviously others (such as Schmidguber) I know would
>disagree.


And me too, here. c type of infinities appears only from first person
point of views which relies on all infinite digital conputations.


> Its like asking for the "c"th real number, rather than the
>"c"th integer, if you like.
>
>I'm not sure what the connection is with this non-standard model of
>computation and others such as Malament-Hogarth machines (sp?)


Ah. Yes, what you say make sense with non-standard notion of machines.
(Well beyond comp I think).

Bruno
Received on Thu Dec 05 2002 - 06:09:34 PST