I Want to Review FDT; Are my Criticisms Legitimate?

I’m go­ing to write a re­view of func­tional de­ci­sion the­ory, I’ll use the two pa­pers.
It’s go­ing to be around as long as the pa­pers them­selves, cou­pled with school work, I’m not sure when I’ll finish writ­ing.
Be­fore I start it, I want to be sure my crit­i­cisms are le­gi­t­i­mate; is any­one will­ing to go over my crit­i­cisms with me?

My main points of crit­i­cism are:
Func­tional de­ci­sion the­ory is ac­tu­ally al­gorith­mic de­ci­sion the­ory. It has an al­gorith­mic view of de­ci­sion the­o­ries. It re­lies on al­gorith­mic equiv­alence and not func­tional equiv­alence.
Quick sort, merge sort, heap sort, in­ser­tion sort, se­lec­tion sort, bub­ble sort, etc are mu­tu­ally al­gorith­mi­cally dis­similar, but are all func­tion­ally equiv­a­lent.

If two de­ci­sion al­gorithms are func­tion­ally equiv­a­lent, but al­gorith­mi­cally dis­similar, you’d want a de­ci­sion the­ory that recog­nises this.

Causal de­pen­dence is a sub­set of al­gorith­mic de­pen­dence which is a sub­set of func­tional de­pen­dence.

So, I spec­ify what an ac­tual func­tional de­ci­sion the­ory would look like.

I then go on to show that even func­tional de­pen­dence is “im­pov­er­ished”.

Imag­ine a greedy al­gorithm that gets 95% of prob­lems cor­rect.

Let’s call this greedy al­gorithm f’.
Let’s call a cor­rect al­gorithm f.

f and f’ are func­tion­ally cor­re­lated, but not func­tion­ally equiv­a­lent.

FDT does not recog­nise this.

If f is your de­ci­sion al­gorithm, and f’ is your pre­dic­tor’s de­ci­sion al­gorithm, then FDT doesn’t recom­mend one box­ing on New­comb’s prob­lem.

EDT can deal with func­tional cor­re­la­tions.

EDT doesn’t dis­t­in­guish func­tional cor­re­la­tions from spu­ri­ous cor­re­la­tions, while FDT doesn’t recog­nise func­tional cor­re­la­tions.

I use this to spec­ify EFDT (ev­i­den­tial func­tional de­ci­sion the­ory), which con­sid­ers P(f(π) = f’(π)) in­stead of P(f = f’).

I spec­ify the re­quire­ments for a full Im­ple­men­ta­tion of FDT and EFDT.

I’ll pub­lish the first draft of the pa­per here af­ter I’m done.

The pa­per would be long, be­cause I spec­ify a frame­work for eval­u­at­ing de­ci­sion the­o­ries in the pa­per.

Us­ing this frame­work I show that EFDT > FDT > ADT > CDT.
I also show that EFDT > EDT.
This frame­work is ba­si­cally a hi­er­ar­chy of de­ci­sion the­o­ries.

A > B means that the set of prob­lems that B cor­rectly de­cides is a sub­set of the set of prob­lems that A cor­rectly de­cides.

The de­pen­dence hi­er­ar­chy is why CDT < ADT < FDT.

EFDT > FDT be­cause EFDT can recog­nise func­tional cor­re­la­tions.

EFDT > EDT be­cause EFDT can dis­t­in­guish func­tional cor­re­la­tions from spu­ri­ous cor­re­la­tions.

I plan to write the pa­per as best as I can, and if I think it’s good enough, I’ll try sub­mit­ting it.