Re: does complexity tell us that there are probably exploits?

From: Daniel Radetsky (
Date: Mon Aug 22 2005 - 20:46:12 MDT

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:24:56 -0400
Peter de Blanc <> wrote:

> On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 17:15 -0700, Daniel Radetsky wrote:
> > Vassar wants to say that despite my objections, we ought worry about
> > exploits
> > but not ninja hippos because the claim "there are exploits" has a
> > higher prior
> > probability than "there are ninja hippos." This is because, according
> > to
> > Vassar, the Kolmogorov complexity of e, the first proposition, is
> > greater than
> > the complexity of h, the second proposition.
> I think his point was that the class of phenomena which we would call
> "exploits" is much larger than the class of phenomena which we would
> call "ninja hippos."
> By the way, it doesn't really make sense to speak of the Kolmogorov
> complexity of a set of possible outcomes as a means to determine the
> probability that the actual outcome will fall within that set.
> Kolmogorov complexity is only useful for assigning priors to *specific*
> outcomes.

This is true. I considered writing originally that we would have to find the
complexity of every BSA such that e, and then use probability calculus rules to
find the probability of the disjunction of all of them, but I got lazy.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:52 MDT