Added: Nov 18, 2008
From: randyhelzerman
Duration: 4:50
In which we go over the solutions to the homework and give a brief discussion about kolmogorov complexity.
Channel: Education
Tags: chaitin complexity helzerman kolmogorov levin prolog randy solomonoff
Rating: 5.00 (17 ratings) Views: 335 Comments: 15
o0splitpaw0o Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You da man!
randyhelzerman Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - ARG!!!!!!!!!!!! I forgot the b: the real solution is:a:-write('HHHHH'). b:-a,a. r:-b,b,write('T'),b.b.**sheepsishly** congrats once again maksiiskam2. You're pretty durn amazing.
howtofoldsoup Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - And though, I think this is the only situation where I can see myself being proud to say this; mine was shorter:a:-b,b,write('T'),b,b. b:-write('HHHHHHHHHH').a:-write('HHHHH'). b:-a,a. r:-b,b,write('T'),b.b.The "b" in your example adds 8 characters, adding 5 H's to the first string beats it by 3.
randyhelzerman Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - LOL yeah size does matter! Holy Cow!!! You're right!!! I did an amazingly sloppy job on this one... Congratulations for drawing the short straw...-Randy
heyalun Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I just want to let you know that you have my rapt attention and have won the only subscription that I have. This is of great interest to me. I've seen all the videos in this series and am eager to hear your conclusion. I ain't doin' no homework, but I am following.
randyhelzerman Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Hi heyalun, thanks! :-) I had my doubts when starting this series whether anybody would still be watching, its nice to know that after 12 very very technical lectures some people still are.
sssswwwsssss Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - I love this series; I'm finding it so therapeutic. And its getting me away from that nasty philosophy stuff, where you'd have to begin to think about our intentionality toward a certain computation, which under some other aspect could change etc.. Whereas, here, either in abstraction or intuition, when I type in a certain function I'll always get the same output. Wow! This is like going to the heath farm or something.
sssswwwsssss Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - A quick note about Husserl: What's suspicious about this (Husserl's) form of "mereology, and why is it like shooting oneself in the leg to prove that this gun is just about lethal enough?: If a law of essence means that A cannot as such exist except in a more comprehensive unity which connects it with an M, we say that A as such requires foundation by an M [more axioms follow...]
randyhelzerman Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - LOL, I'm glad your watching. Actually, philosophers are renoun and highly valued for their ability to become good programmers; after Husserl and Heidegger, etc, anything is a snap :-)
sssswwwsssss Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Hi Randy, and that's why we all have to understand enough of it in order to know just what we should be throwing away. So, (great example) mereology, unlike sets, has some kind of ontological innocence, right, so Husserl builds up this whole deductive apparatus, which need not admit of any dubious ontology, great, and then, with no ostensible benefit, he goes and characterizes his axioms as "laws of essence", and throws himself into a brute platonism . Mad!
randyhelzerman Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - wow, that is mad. dude, you need to make some videos about husserl.
sssswwwsssss Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You'll laugh at this. He then goes on to scrape his realism a few years, and becomes an idealist!
sagaforest Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - hey randy which program do you use to make these pwnage vids?
randyhelzerman Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - Hi sagaforest, I use Keynote to make the chalkboard-esque slides, Snap Z Pro for the screenshot captures, and iMovie08 to mix it all together.
maksiiiskam2 Says:
Nov 18, 2008 - You hooked me into watching immediately by putting the title "Best Solution" in the center frame!Thanks for the special mention. :-)But doesn't your optimal solution produce only 10 H's, one T, and 10 H's, instead of the 20-1-20 you asked for?