# Reply to 'Mathematical Inconsistency in Solomonoff Induction?'

*Date: 2020-09-04*

This is a reply to this LessWrong post.

I went through the maths in OP and it seems to check out. I think the core inconsistency is that SI implies . I’m going to redo the maths below (breaking it down step-by-step more). curi has which is the same inconsistency given his substitution. I’m not sure we can make that substitution but I also don’t think we need to.

Let X and Y be independent hypotheses for Solomonoff induction.

According to the prior, the non-normalized probability of X (and similarly for Y ) is:

what is the probability of ?

However, by Equation (1) we have:

thus

This must hold for any and all X and Y .

curi considers the case where X and Y are the same length, starting with Equation (4)

but

and

so

curi has slightly different logic and argues which I think is reasonable. His argument means we get . I don’t think those steps are necessary but they are worth mentioning as a difference. I think Equation (8) is enough.

I was curious about what happens when . Let’s assume the following:

so, from Equation (2)

by Equation (3) and Equation (10)

but Equation (9) says – this contradicts Equation (11).

So there’s an inconsistency regardless of whether or not.

You can leave a comment anonymously. No sign up or login is required. Use a junk email if not your own; email is only for notifications—though, FYI, I will be able to see it.

Comments powered by Talkyard.