> you're going to get a radically different K-complexity number than you will if your encoding goes the other way around.
in the limit, all schemes are roughly equivalent. (they are equivalent up to constants.)
> given the nature of the problems in question that's going to really not work
ok. so attempting to compute the kolmogorov complexity for iq test problems is a bad idea. it isnt actually a computable function. its existence shows there is a mathematically rigorous way to talk about the most plausible way to extend an integer sequence. more than anything, this is a counter to the argument that "an uncountably infinite number of functions to choose from and a finite set of inputs to choose among them" makes the test entirely subjective.
> there is no unique K-complexity value for a given language.
for any given language, there is, unless i dont understand what youre saying.
> your encoding scheme favors polynomials but makes expression squares a royal pain
i know its wrong, but i cant help pointing out that that doesnt actually make any sense at all
in the limit, all schemes are roughly equivalent. (they are equivalent up to constants.)
> given the nature of the problems in question that's going to really not work
ok. so attempting to compute the kolmogorov complexity for iq test problems is a bad idea. it isnt actually a computable function. its existence shows there is a mathematically rigorous way to talk about the most plausible way to extend an integer sequence. more than anything, this is a counter to the argument that "an uncountably infinite number of functions to choose from and a finite set of inputs to choose among them" makes the test entirely subjective.
> there is no unique K-complexity value for a given language.
for any given language, there is, unless i dont understand what youre saying.
> your encoding scheme favors polynomials but makes expression squares a royal pain
i know its wrong, but i cant help pointing out that that doesnt actually make any sense at all