On 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

    On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

    On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
    <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

        On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

        On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
        <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

            On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
            <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

                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 
of all
            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 
of no
        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 
compressible in
            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 
used to
        write it down? Did I have to write down "And this is in base 10" to 
show that
        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.  
If you
    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 
of the
        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 
base 2,
    the sequence '110' seems more common than statistics would suggest.  In any 
    the number is far from incompressible. It takes only 9 characters to 
represent that
    19 digit number in Kolmogorov complexity "1r19inb10" = "1 repeated 19 times 
in base
    10", in my encoding language.

    So you are agreeing with me that to cite a specific number and say "That 
number is
    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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to