On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 09:16:54PM +0200, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > This is not a consequence of the shannon optimum coding , in which the > coding size of a symbol is inversely proportional to the logaritm of the > frequency of the symbol?.
Not quite. Traditional shannon entropy uses probability of a symbol, whereas algorithmic complexity uses the probability of the whole sequence. Only if the symbols are independently distributed are the two the same. Usually, in most messages, the symbols are not id. > > What is exactly the comp measure problem? A UD generates and executes all programs, many of which are equivalent. So some programs are represented more than others. The COMP measure is a function over all programs that captures this variation in program respresentation. Why should this be unique, independent of UD, or the universal Turing machine it runs on? Because the UD executes every other UD, as well as itself, the measure will be a limit over contributions from all UDs. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
