On 15/10/2014, r...@audioimagination.com <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: > sorry, Peter, but we be unimpressed.
I gave you a practical, working *algorithm*, that does *something*. In my opinion, it (roughly) approximates 'expected entropy', and I found various practical real-world uses of this algorithm for categorizing arbitrary data. Apparently, several other people also agree with me that the measure of "entropy" is the measure of "randomness", again, let me quote this very relevant paper: ^ Marek Lesniewicz (2014) Expected Entropy as a Measure and Criterion of Randomness of Binary Sequences [1] In Przeglad Elektrotechniczny, Volume 90, pp. 42– 46. So it seems, I'm not the only one on this planet, who thinks _exactly_ this way. Therefore, I think your argument is invalid, or all the other people who wrote those scientific entropy estimation papers are _all_ also "crackpots". If you think my algorithm doesn't approximate "entropy", because your religion says otherwise... then my question to you is: "What does it approximate then?" -- dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website: subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp links http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
