On 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb 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
6999500235148669 is just 10.
You can define a finite string as incompressible when the
combinators to generate it is as lengthy as the string itself.
This definition is not universal for a finite amount of short
sequences which indeed will depend of the language used (here
Then you can show that such a definition can be made universal
adding some constant, which will depend of the universal
It can be shown that most (finite!) numbers, written in any
are random in that sense.
Of course, 10 is a sort of compression of any string X in some
but if you allow change of base, you will need to send the base
the number in the message. If you fix the base, then indeed 10
be a compression of that particular number base, for that
and it is part of incompressibility theory that no definition
working for all (small) numbers.
Since all finite numbers are small, I think this means the
only holds in the limit.
It is easy to see with the pigeon hole principal. There are more 2
numbers than 1 digit numbers, and more 3 digit numbers than 2 digit
numbers, and so on. For any string you can represent using a
string, another "shorter string" must necessarily be displaced. You
can't keep replacing things with shorter strings because there
enough of them, so as a side-effect, every compression strategy must
represent some strings by larger ones. In fact, the average size
possible compressed messages (with some upper-bound length n) can
be smaller than the average size of all uncompressed messages.
The only reason compression algorithms are useful is because they
tailored to represent some class of messages with shorter strings,
making (the vast majority of) other messages slightly larger.
A good explanation.
But just because you cannot compress all numbers of a given size
imply that any particular number is incompressible.
That is true if you consider the size of the compression program to be
relevance. In such a case, you can of course have a number of very
strings map directly to very large ones.
So isn't it the case that every finite number string is
some algorithm? So there's no sense to saying 6999500235148668 is
but 11111111111111 is not, except relative to some given compression
Right, but this leads to the concept of Kolmogorov complexity. If you
the size of the minimum string and algorithm together, necessary to
some number, you will find there are some patterns of data that are more
compressible than others. In your previous example with base
6999500235148668, you would need to include both that base, and the
"10" in order to encode 6999500235148669.
But that seems to make the randomness of a number dependent on the base
write it down? Did I have to write down "And this is in base 10" to
6999500235148668 is random? There seems to be an equivocation here on
"computing a number" and "computing a representation of a number".
A number containing regular patterns in some base, will also contain regular
patterns in some other base (even if they are not obvious to us),
algorithms are good at recognizing them.
The text of this sentence may not seem very redundant, but english text can
generally be compressed somewhere between 20% - 30% of its original size.
convert a number like "55555555555" to base 2, its patterns should be more
in the pattern of bits.
For the majority of numbers, you will find the Kolmogorov complexity
number to almost always be on the order of the number of digits in that
number. The exceptions like 1111111111 are few and far between.
111111111 looks a lot messier in base 9.
base 10: 1111111111111111111
base 9: 7355531854711617707
base 2: 11110110101101110101101010110010101111000100011100
In base 9, there is a high proportion of 7's compared to other digits. In
the sequence '110' seems more common than statistics would suggest. In any
the number is far from incompressible. It takes only 9 characters to
19 digit number in Kolmogorov complexity "1r19inb10" = "1 repeated 19 times
10", in my encoding language.
So you are agreeing with me that to cite a specific number and say "That
random." is meaningless.
I agree with that in the sense of "random as unpredictable", but I disagree in the sense
of "random as uncompressible". Some numbers are objectively not compressible, just like
some shufflings of a deck of cards are uncompressible, because the shortest possible
description of the ordering of the cards requires more information to describe than
merely giving the list itself. So it is with a number and its digits.
I think we're talking past each other. What you're calling a number is what I'd call a
string of digits. I can understand a string of digits being incompressible...but the
number it names has many representations. To say a number is incompressible?? There's an
old joke proof in mathematics that every number is interesting, otherwise there would be a
smallest uninteresting number - which would peforce be interesting. It seems that
interesting means something like "has a short description".
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.