User:IssaRice/Logical inductor construction: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
Line 9: Line 9:
"the compact, convex space <math>\mathcal V'</math>" -- this intuitively makes sense, since <math>\mathcal V'</math> basically "looks like" a cube. But I'm not sure how to verify this.
"the compact, convex space <math>\mathcal V'</math>" -- this intuitively makes sense, since <math>\mathcal V'</math> basically "looks like" a cube. But I'm not sure how to verify this.


For the fixed point reasoning: we don't actually have a fixed point of <math>f</math>; instead, it's a fixed point of <math>g</math>, where <math>g(x) = f(x+\delta)</math> and <math>\delta = T_n(\mathbb P_{\leq n-1}, \mathbb V^\text{fix})[\phi]</math>.
For the fixed point reasoning: we don't actually have a fixed point of <math>f</math>; instead, it's a fixed point of <math>g</math>, where <math>g(x) = f(x+\delta)</math> and <math>\delta = T_n(\mathbb P_{\leq n-1}, \mathbb V^\text{fix})[\phi]</math>. If <math>\delta > 0</math>, then the graph of <math>g</math> is just the graph of <math>f</math> but shifted to the left. You will see that this intersects the graph of the identity function at <math>x=1</math>; this is the fixed point. On the other hand, if <math>\delta < 0</math>, then we shift the graph of <math>f</math> to the right, and now the fixed point is at <math>x=0</math>.


The following is used in the Fixed Point Lemma (5.1.1):
The following is used in the Fixed Point Lemma (5.1.1):

Revision as of 18:42, 25 June 2019

Notes from the Logical Induction paper as I walk through the construction of LIA in section 5.

Lemma 5.1.1 (Fixed Point Lemma)

"Observe that is equal to the natural inclusion of the finite-dimensional cube in the space of all valuations ." -- I think what this is saying is that since , we can think of as being sort of a subset of . Except it's not strictly speaking a subset, since the functions in and have different domains. How can we make it a subset? The "natural" way to do this is to set everything outside of to zero. But that's exactly what is. One thing I'm still not sure about is the "finite-dimensional" part; doesn't having make the cube infinite-dimensional?

Definition of fix: I found it helpful to look at the graph of ; this looks like the identity function in the interval , but then becomes constant once it hits either of the endpoints. If you've already thought about the definition of continuous threshold indicator (definition 4.3.2), then you will recognize that .

"the compact, convex space " -- this intuitively makes sense, since basically "looks like" a cube. But I'm not sure how to verify this.

For the fixed point reasoning: we don't actually have a fixed point of ; instead, it's a fixed point of , where and . If , then the graph of is just the graph of but shifted to the left. You will see that this intersects the graph of the identity function at ; this is the fixed point. On the other hand, if , then we shift the graph of to the right, and now the fixed point is at .

The following is used in the Fixed Point Lemma (5.1.1):

Writing the -strategy as

we have

But so the two sums cancel to obtain .

Definition/Proposition 5.1.2 (MarketMaker)

Lemma 5.1.3 (MarketMaker Inexploitability)

Definition/Proposition 5.2.1 (Budgeter)

Lemma 5.2.2 (Properties of Budgeter)

Proposition 5.3.1 (Redundant Enumeration of e.c. Traders)

Definition/Proposition 5.3.2 (TradingFirm)

Lemma 5.3.3 (Trading Firm Dominance)

See also