Talk:Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference

Shouldn't this entry be titled 'universal inductive inference', since there are many more models of inductive inference than the Solomonoff/AIT model? --Johnny Logic 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have created a redirect from Identification by next value. Someone knowledgable on inductive inference could useful expand this article to include information on different techniques. QuiteUnusual 13:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nowhere near meeting minimum Wikipedia quality standards. In particular, the section entitled "Modern applications" is appalling. TheSeven (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add a clarification needed tag to an entire article? EDIT: just found out about the {{clarity}} tag. GreatBigDot (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Turing Machine section have a warning about no citations? Every other sentence ends with a citation in parens! TravellerDMT-07 (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes the statement, in the subsection titled 'Solomonoff's Uncomputability', that "[...] he showed that computability and completeness are mutually exclusive: any complete theory must be uncomputable." This gives the impression that Solomonoff discovered this property of computable logic; which is both misleading and false. It was Godel that first discovered this property with his incompleteness theorems. A link should be made between this statement and Godel's findings in order to avoid misrepresenting Solomonoff as the discoverer of this property of finite logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.111.102 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with that Turing machines section?

Does anybody have a good understating of what "Turing machines" section is talking about and why it's there? I gave it a read and my impression it only claims that there's some awesome theory that is "next step in the development of computer science", rants that it's misunderstood by "some researchers" and cites Burgin a lot --- no definitions, no properties, nothing about how it's relevant to Solomonoff's induction. It seems completely useless as is.

TM section is completely unrelated to this entry. I recommend removal. A1957

Contradiction regarding probability of large programs

I find these two consecutive statements in the text to be incompatible. The first is a mathematical statement, the second informal, so it may have to deal with my interpretation of the latter one

1. for every ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } \epsilon > 0, there is some length l such that the probability of all programs longer than l is at most ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } \epsilon .

2. This (1 above) does not, however, preclude very long programs from having very high probability.

It seems to me 1. does indeed prevent the probability of any programs larger than l (very long) to be greater than epsilon (very high), as the sum of all the probabilities of such programs, each positive quantities, is itself less than epsilon.