The Student Room Group

What does a Wolpert's machine do?

Here is a description of Wolpert's machine from an article published on livescience.com, but I did not understand anything. Would you please care to explain it for me?

"Basically, Wolpert building on previous work by Alan Turing formalized a description of "inference machines," i.e. machines capable of arriving at inferences about the world (human beings are one example of such machines). Wolpert focused on what he calls strong inference, the ability of one machine to predict the totality of conclusions arrived at by another similar machine. Wolpert then logically proved the following two conclusions: a) For every machine capable of conducting strong inferences on the totality of the laws of physics there will be a second machine that cannot be strongly inferred from the first one; b) Given any pair of such machines, they cannot be strongly inferred from each other."

Source: http://www.livescience.com/2995-theory.html
Reply 1
Original post by MedQ
Here is a description of Wolpert's machine from an article published on livescience.com, but I did not understand anything. Would you please care to explain it for me?

"Basically, Wolpert building on previous work by Alan Turing formalized a description of "inference machines," i.e. machines capable of arriving at inferences about the world (human beings are one example of such machines). Wolpert focused on what he calls strong inference, the ability of one machine to predict the totality of conclusions arrived at by another similar machine. Wolpert then logically proved the following two conclusions: a) For every machine capable of conducting strong inferences on the totality of the laws of physics there will be a second machine that cannot be strongly inferred from the first one; b) Given any pair of such machines, they cannot be strongly inferred from each other."

Source: http://www.livescience.com/2995-theory.html


sounds like pure maths afaict - they just used 'the laws of physics' as an example.

much like discussion of russel's teapot doesn't really belong on pottery forums.
Reply 2
Original post by Joinedup
sounds like pure maths afaict - they just used 'the laws of physics' as an example.

much like discussion of russel's teapot doesn't really belong on pottery forums.


Pardon my wrong categorisation of the question.
Reply 3
Original post by MedQ
Pardon my wrong categorisation of the question.


I just think you'd stand a better chance of a explanation you'll find satisfactory if you ask in maths. that's all :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest