News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why scientists are redefining the kilogram. Parent comment

Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by Bromskloss on Thursday October 26, 2017 @05:52PM (#15563403)
Maybe it's simpler than "models with a simplicity that is dissimilar to that of other successful models are more likely to be true", though it's not obvious what should be considered simple and not.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by lmm on Friday October 27, 2017 @04:01AM (#15566506)
Kolgomorov complexity seems like the obviously correct measure, though AIUI it's only defined relative to some fixed Turing machine.

I have an idea of doing a PageRank-style weighting of Turing machines, based on how simple/complex simulating one under another is. That would align with my intuition that most basic universal Turing machines are equally valid, but one that has (say) a short instruction that outputs one particular long sequence of symbols is probably not a valid machine to use.

[ Parent | on HN ]