In the post, the word “hypothesis” is used to refer to events
Then title “complexity of a hypothesis” makes no sense. Events (“hypotheses” in post) have no complexity. Descriptions (“hypotheses” in my comment) have complexity.
Connection is between complexity of descriptions and probability of events, and it has none of the problems described in the post.
Even after adjusting for terminology, I can’t understand the point of your comment. Maybe you could flesh it out more formally in your own preferred terms?
For example, imagine we’re receiving a sequence of integers. Consider the statements A = “all are even”, B = “all are perfect squares”, C = A and B, D = A or B. In your formalism, which of these are “hypotheses”? Which are “events”? Which “have complexity”, and which don’t?
Then title “complexity of a hypothesis” makes no sense. Events (“hypotheses” in post) have no complexity. Descriptions (“hypotheses” in my comment) have complexity.
Connection is between complexity of descriptions and probability of events, and it has none of the problems described in the post.
Even after adjusting for terminology, I can’t understand the point of your comment. Maybe you could flesh it out more formally in your own preferred terms?
For example, imagine we’re receiving a sequence of integers. Consider the statements A = “all are even”, B = “all are perfect squares”, C = A and B, D = A or B. In your formalism, which of these are “hypotheses”? Which are “events”? Which “have complexity”, and which don’t?