>"No, no, no! It says the model is powerful enough to compute any computable function. This is where the optimality of universal measures comes from."
Then the model must be whatever function it is computing/approximating for that case. Otherwise I can't make sense of what you keep saying. You must be using "model" in a sense that is so general as to have no meaning to me.
>"Equation 8 is presenting the binomial model as an example that is different from the universal machine model."
Ok, where is an actual probability is calculated from the 'universal machine model"? That is all I want to see at this point (which was the original topic). I want to see some sort of real life phenomenon for which this procedure calculates a probability, so I can tell what it means. Not a general proof or something like that, some real data or simple data generating process.
Then the model must be whatever function it is computing/approximating for that case. Otherwise I can't make sense of what you keep saying. You must be using "model" in a sense that is so general as to have no meaning to me.
>"Equation 8 is presenting the binomial model as an example that is different from the universal machine model."
Ok, where is an actual probability is calculated from the 'universal machine model"? That is all I want to see at this point (which was the original topic). I want to see some sort of real life phenomenon for which this procedure calculates a probability, so I can tell what it means. Not a general proof or something like that, some real data or simple data generating process.