On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate > computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate > only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm generating all numbers, > 0, 1, 2, .... 6999500235148668, ... generates all random finite > incompressible strings, > > > How can a finite string be incompressible? 6999500235148668 in base > 6999500235148669 is just 10. > It took you 2 more digits to represent that number in that way. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
