On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > But I wouldn't have if everybody knew that our numbering system was base > 6999500235148669. > You should patent this and sell the compression algorithm to youtube. :-) 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.
