On 4/29/07, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To use another pragmatic example, both LISP and FORTRAN have universal computing power, but, some programs are **way** shorter to code in LISP than FORTRAN, and this makes a big practical difference. Even though it's true that length(P in FORTRAN) = length(P in LISP) + O(1) These O(1) contents, that seem so insignificant in abstract theory, can make a big difference in reality at the human scale...
Sure, but that doesn't matter to Kolmogorov complexity. Why? Because the KC addendum is bounded by the amount of code required to write a Lisp interpreter in Fortran - and this is rather small, even on the human scale! In practice most people don't do this (even when the program does end up being much longer in Fortran than Lisp) for various reasons: they don't know how to write a Lisp interpreter, they need the runtime speed of compiled Fortran, Lisp syntax gives them a headache, their editor doesn't match brackets, their boss will get angry if they program in a language nobody else in the department knows or wants to learn, etc. But those are different things than KC. In other words, I agree with you that in practice representation matters, I just think KC isn't necessarily a very helpful way to look at the issue. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
