The idea of relative randomness of a given compression is kind of interesting. There are some compressions which may be transformed without fully decompressing it. In fact LZ, if I understand correctly, uses what has already been compressed to append a next section to be compressed. And computational mathematics, using n-ary or base n representation, is actually a case of applying functions on compressed data. And most data base functions which use one part of many data records to compute some value are examples of effectively using compressed data without fully decompressing it. (The one part of the data that is being used is an abstraction of a transaction for instance.) I am really thinking about specialized fields of data. And I do have an idea for AGI in which data may be stored in various levels of compression. Ideas may refer to a subject matter (or subjects) in various levels of resolution which can also overlap other concepts in various ways. I am almost sure that I could make this work for some artificial data (or artificial formations of references) and then use it to make successive computations of how concepts might interact. But right now I I nterested in seeing if there is any way I can use any of these ideas to create a novel way to represent logical relations. Jim Bromer
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 4:59 AM Andrés Gómez Emilsson via AGI <[email protected]> wrote: > > If the algorithm for compression is good then forget about it. In that case > the best (and near only) way is to uncompress the file and then re-compress > it with the new, more effective algorithm. > > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:53 PM Nanograte Knowledge Technologies via AGI > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> A discussion centered around pseudo randomness. >> >> As a private experiment on randomness, I once took published data of cosmic >> noise and tabled it in an appropriate way. Within less than 54 iterations, >> emerged a consistent, embedded pattern. My conclusion was that cosmic noise >> was pseudo random. Would my experiment destroy the lava-lamp theory of true >> randomness? Possibly. >> >> Recently, someone quoted Gell Mann. His established view on randomness is >> most enlightening. >> >> As far as I can tell, true randomness cannot be observed, because the >> instant it is observed the energy of observation destroys the purity (or >> truth) thereof. Unless you're a remote viewer, or supernatural observer it >> would seem that science has fallen foul of its own need for empirical >> evidence. Solve the problem: How does one observe without observing at all? >> >> Matt, I think you have earned an olive branch in that within a bridging, >> scientific theory (Existentialism) you may call any thing whatever you want, >> for as long as you have it clearly objectified; defined in terms of >> meaningfulness and applied in a consistent, semantic manner. I think the >> prior statement contains a hidden key. >> >> If so, then you may rely on the probability of your accepted version of that >> thing. Further, to ensure it would remain correct and complete within your >> particular system. How do you do that? >> >> Still, easy to translate across boundaries as well. >> >> *One's shoe may be another's steak. That is the nature of true relativity in >> motion. >> >> Rob >> ________________________________ >> From: Jim Bromer via AGI <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2018 3:34 AM >> To: AGI >> Subject: Re: [agi] Compressed Algorithms that can work on compressed data. >> >> Matt said, "A string is random if there is no shorter description of >> the string." >> >> That is a conjecture, or a hypothesis. >> >> Matt said, "... but there is no general algorithm to distinguish them in any >> language. >> "Encrypted data appears random if you don't know the key. But it is not >> random because it has a short description (compressed plaintext + >> key). Kolmogorov proved that there is no general algorithm to tell the >> difference." >> >> if there is no general algorithm to distinguish or detect them then >> the hypothesis cannot be validated. While you might present a string >> and declare it to be "random" the fact that you cannot prove that it >> is the shortest description of the string and therefore purely random, >> or random, then the conjecture cannot be sustained. >> Jim Bromer >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 1:37 PM Matt Mahoney via AGI >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:38 PM John Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > OK, what then is between a compression agents perspective (or any agent >> > > for that matter) and randomness? Including shades of randomness to >> > > relatively "pure" randomness. >> > >> > A string is random if there is no shorter description of the string. >> > Obviously this depends on which language you use to write >> > descriptions. Formally, a description is a program that outputs the >> > string. There are no "shades" of randomness. A string is random or >> > not, but there is no general algorithm to distinguish them in any >> > language. If there were, then AIXI and thus general intelligence would >> > be computable. >> > >> > > From an information theoretic (and thermodynamic) viewpoint in your mind >> > > what happens when you see the symbol for infinity? Semi-quantitatively >> > > describe the thought processes? >> > >> > The same thing that happens when you see any other symbols like "2" or >> > "+". Mathematics is the art of discovering rules for manipulating >> > symbols that help us make real world predictions. >> > >> > -- >> > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > > > -- > Andrés Leonardo Gómez Emilsson > Sentient Being (or Consciousness Narrative Stream, depending on how you want > to look at it) > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + participants + > delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T55454c75265cabe2-M46446af659f5041201b7a553 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
