policy selection converges to giving Omega the money so long as the difficulty of computing the coin exceeds the power of the market at f(n) time.
Would it be sensible to just look for muggings (and ASPs) at the very beginning of the process, and then decide immediately what to do as soon as one is detected?
Come to think of that, precommitting to ignoring knowledge about the result of the coin seems to be the best strategy here; does this cash out into anything useful in this formalism?
Looking “at the very beginning” won’t work—the beliefs of the initial state of the logical inductor won’t be good enough to sensibly detect these things and decide what to do about them.
While ignoring the coin is OK as special-case reasoning, I don’t think everything falls nicely into the bucket of “information you want to ignore” vs “information you want to update on”. The more general concept which captures both is to ask “how do I want to react to thin information, in terms of my action?”—which is of course the idea of policy selection.
Would it be sensible to just look for muggings (and ASPs) at the very beginning of the process, and then decide immediately what to do as soon as one is detected?
Come to think of that, precommitting to ignoring knowledge about the result of the coin seems to be the best strategy here; does this cash out into anything useful in this formalism?
Looking “at the very beginning” won’t work—the beliefs of the initial state of the logical inductor won’t be good enough to sensibly detect these things and decide what to do about them.
While ignoring the coin is OK as special-case reasoning, I don’t think everything falls nicely into the bucket of “information you want to ignore” vs “information you want to update on”. The more general concept which captures both is to ask “how do I want to react to thin information, in terms of my action?”—which is of course the idea of policy selection.