3 ms·
This basically says "the model is anything at all". No, no, no! It says the model is powerful enough to compute any computable function. This is where the opti
by antidesitter 8y ago
This basically says "the model is anything at all".
No, no, no! It says the model is powerful enough to compute any computable function. This is where the optimality of universal measures comes from.
From the first example in the first link, I see the probability in that case is conditional on the binomial model correctly describing the phenomenon (equation 8).
Equation 8 is presenting the binomial model as an example that is different from the universal machine model.
- nonbel 8y ago>"No, no, no! It says the model is powerful enough to compute any computable function. This is where the optimality of universal measures comes from." Then the model must be whatever function it is computing/approximating for that case. Otherwise I can't make sense of what you keep saying. You must be using "model" in a sense that is so general as to have no meaning to me. >"Equation 8 is presenting the binomial model as an example that is different from the universal machine model." Ok, where is an actual probability is calculated from the 'universal machine model"? That is all I want to see at this point (which was the original topic). I want to see some sort of real life phenomenon for which this procedure calculates a probability, so I can tell what it means. Not a general proof or something like that, some real data or simple data generating process.