If a regulator is ‘good’ (in the sense described by the two criteria in the previous section), then the variable R can be described as a deterministic function of S .
Really! This is the theorem?
Is there anyone else who understands the Good Regulator Theorem that can confirm this?
The reasons I’m surprised/confused are:
This has nothing to do with modelling
The teorem is too obviously true to be interesting
That is enough for me to confirm that this is indeed what it says. Not because I trust John more than Alfred, but because there are now tow independent enough claims on LW for the same definition of the theorem, which would be very surprising if the definition was wrong.
I know you asked for other people (presumably not me) to confirm this but I can point you to the statement of the theorem, as written by Conant and Ashby in the original paper :
Theorem: The simplest optimal regulator R of a reguland S produces events R which are related to the events S by a mapping h:S→R
Restated somewhat less rigorously, the theorem says that the best regulator of a system is one which is a model of that system in the sense that the regulator’s actions are merely the system’s actions as seen through a mapping h.
I agree that it has nothing to do with modelling and is not very interesting! But the simple theorem is surrounded by so much mysticism (both in the paper and in discussions about it) that it is often not obvious what the theorem actually says.
Really! This is the theorem?
Is there anyone else who understands the Good Regulator Theorem that can confirm this?
The reasons I’m surprised/confused are:
This has nothing to do with modelling
The teorem is too obviously true to be interesting
johnswentworth’s post Fixing The Good Regulator Theorem has the same definition of the Good Regulator Theorem.
That is enough for me to confirm that this is indeed what it says. Not because I trust John more than Alfred, but because there are now tow independent enough claims on LW for the same definition of the theorem, which would be very surprising if the definition was wrong.
I know you asked for other people (presumably not me) to confirm this but I can point you to the statement of the theorem, as written by Conant and Ashby in the original paper :
I agree that it has nothing to do with modelling and is not very interesting! But the simple theorem is surrounded by so much mysticism (both in the paper and in discussions about it) that it is often not obvious what the theorem actually says.