Re: Lexicons
From: Timothy Little (tim-via-n.i.net_at_little-possums.net)
Date: 01/01/05
- Next message: Zdenek Sperling: "vector relationship"
- Previous message: Dik T. Winter: "Re: 40M for Bush Inauguration and 15M for Tsunami Disaster WAS Re: Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- In reply to: R3769: "Re: Lexicons"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Lexicons"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 1 Jan 2005 04:06:16 GMT
R3769 wrote:
> Is there an algorithm for computing the shortest representation of a
> given sequence of digits?
No, there is not.
> Or is it possible that there is some real number x, whose digits
> have no short explanation, and yet x is not normal?
It is not only possible, it is certain. The set of non-normal reals
is uncountable. The set of "explanations" is countable.
Normality is not necessarily connected with randomness, except in the
sense that if X is a random real variable from a uniform distribution
on a given interval, then P(X is normal) = 1.
Pi itself is not random; no number considered by itself is random.
Even an algorithmic complexity definition does not say that any number
in itself is random, it only defines randomness in the context of a
given labelling system.
- Tim
- Next message: Zdenek Sperling: "vector relationship"
- Previous message: Dik T. Winter: "Re: 40M for Bush Inauguration and 15M for Tsunami Disaster WAS Re: Bush accused of undermining the UN with aid coalition"
- In reply to: R3769: "Re: Lexicons"
- Next in thread: Kent Paul Dolan: "Re: Lexicons"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|