DiEb
Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008
|
| Quote (The whole truth @ May 24 2012,10:35) | | Quote (DiEb @ May 24 2012,01:13) | | Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 13 2012,22:19) | I just took another go on Dembski's and Marks's Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, as KairosFocus referred to it at UncommonDescent:
On a Wrong Remark in a Paper of Robert J. Marks II and William A Dembski
| Quote | | Abstract: In their 2010 paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search, the authors William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II present as one of two results their so-called Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem. One of the consequences of this theorem is their remark: If no information about a search exists, so that the underlying measure is uniform, then, on average, any other assumed measure will result in negative active information, thereby rendering the search performance worse than random search. This is quite surprising, as one would expect in the tradition of the No Free Lunch theorem that the performances are equally good (or bad). Using only very basic elements of probability theory, this essay shows that their remark is wrong - as is their theorem. |
The whole essay can be found here. |
I was just informed by Winston Ewert that there is a new erratum at the paper A Search for a Search which should address (some of) my points. Here is my first reaction. And does the Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics know? |
Regarding ear stoppers, it wouldn't surprise me if one of these days that IDiots are found to have evolved a flap inside their ears that automatically and quickly closes at the first sign of any sort of reality trying to get in. Of course if such a flap were found the IDiots would claim that it's the result of intelligent design by their designer/creator, who did it so that they won't be plagued with hearing realistic challenges to their unsupported beliefs and assertions. :) |
I exchanged emails on this subject with Bob Marks back in 2010! Even before the paper was published in the first place, I had pointed out this problem - in private and in public. In Sep 2010, Bob Marks informed me that has a policy not to engage in correspondence with anyone publically critical of him or his work, as independent of the validity or invalidity of the details of the exchange, these things are best discussed thoroughly before any public pronouncements. So he willfully chose to ignore every unpleasant critic, on his own peril.
|
