Re: an true information theory
examachine_at_gmail.com
Date: 02/22/05
- Next message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- Previous message: Bruce Stephens: "Re: SF: Doesn't work?"
- In reply to: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: an true information theory"
- Next in thread: John Wilkins: "Re: an true information theory"
- Reply: John Wilkins: "Re: an true information theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Feb 2005 02:24:45 -0800
examachine@gmail.com wrote:
> Note that algorithmic entropy is a syntactic theory. It says nothing
> about meaning, unless you apply it there. The relation between Omega
> and H(s) is obvious, H(s/Omega)=O(1), is that what you mean?
An error. I surely meant H( H(s) / Omega ) = O(1), that is: given an
oracle for the halting problem, there is a short constant program that
can enumerate the halting programs and find the length of the shortest
program that computes s.
This may have sounded confusing, so, here is a bit of explanation.
For lack of a better definition, I give pseudo-code, in AIT style. Note
that this is not really a computer program. You can't pass an infinite
string like Omega to a computer program. I'm pushing the defs a little
to make the point.
compute-H(s, Omega)
n <- 1
while true
find all halting programs up to n-bits using Omega
for each such program p in order of increasing size
if U(p) = s
return |p|
n <- n + 1
where U(x) is the universal computer chosen.
The bit "find all halting programs up to n-bits using Omega" is
actually very easy. Time-share all 2^n programs. You know the first
n-bits of Omega, which tells you k programs halt. Keep running the
programs until exactly k programs halt, this is the set of halting
programs that you were looking for.
As you can see, this is not a grossly efficient procedure, but it's a
constant program. Anyway, it's a trivial observation, but perhaps there
is a better way to show it?
Regards,
-- Eray Ozkural
- Next message: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: Existence of mathematical entities (Re: Successor Axiom: on what grounds TF?)"
- Previous message: Bruce Stephens: "Re: SF: Doesn't work?"
- In reply to: examachine_at_gmail.com: "Re: an true information theory"
- Next in thread: John Wilkins: "Re: an true information theory"
- Reply: John Wilkins: "Re: an true information theory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|