Hi Dick

Please don't take this too seriously, you know that I'm mathematically challenged. However, I need to understand what this is all about, and my limited math is all I have. With that in mind, I believe I found a few problems.

>> Any attempt to discover the F(x) = 0 algorithm, is doomed to failure. It should be clear that no matter how much data one receives, there always exists an infinite set of algorithms which will reproduce the stream of data examined and yet differ as to the next piece of data > The absolute best one can hope to do is to predict the probability of observing a given set of data as a function of time. Certainly the proposal is testable and is meaningful when seen against the observations examined prior to the test. Thus it is that the only meaningful solution to our problem of understanding the universe constitutes finding an algorithm which, for any given pattern of data, yields the probability of observing that data at time t It is extremely important that we check the meaning of the three constraints I placed on the problem in terms of the conclusion reached

• Competent criticism is my greatest hope! - doctordick - December 19, 2001 - 22:16 UTC
  • I'm not convinced - aurino - December 20, 2001 - 13:53 UTC
    • Interesting dialogue - harvey1 - December 20, 2001 - 14:36 UTC
      • Subtle issues - aurino - December 20, 2001 - 16:37 UTC
        • You may be smarter than you look! - doctordick - December 20, 2001 - 17:31 UTC
          • Couldn't agree more - aurino - December 20, 2001 - 17:42 UTC
          • Dick: that's a red rag to a bull! - dolphin - December 22, 2001 - 06:28 UTC
• Competent criticism is my greatest hope! - doctordick - December 19, 2001 - 22:24 UTC