- Michael Olea said:
> The point was just that Kolmogorov complexity is not a very goodTechnically speaking, I'm not sure this is correct. What can we say
> measure of how difficult something is to learn, if what is being
> learned is not strings but a processes for producing them.
about the difficulty of *the* process of generating strings (not just
any "random" sequence but *the* "random" sequence) with high
Kolmogorov complexity? Certainly, that the length of the program for
generating the string is not much less than the length of the sequence
Any such sequence and/or process is random by the AIT definition of
random. Both the process and sequence are random.
Non-random processes have shorter descriptions in some fixed universal
This results from how "random" is defined within AIT, which is
different than the intuitive concept of randomness which is usually
attributed to some inherently random process such a flipping a fair coin.
- Jim Whitescarver wrote:
> > Furthermore, it is not at all clear to me, that any axiomaticShaka, when the walls fell...
> > approach can tell us anything definite about quantum complexity
> > and hence how the universe, and truth itself really work.
> As long as one of those three degrees is labeled "undecidable" I'mTemba, his arms wide
> good with it.
> It's only when someone wishes to apply the tag "both" inZinda, his face black, his eyes red!!!
> any serious discussion that I tend to see red as my blood pressure
> approaches max.
> Agreed, we only see discrete outcomes. If decidable, we get aSokath, his eyes uncovered! Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel...
> deterministic outcome, otherwise we get a random outcome. However,
> if we ask what outcomes we get from an undecidable bit, the answer
> is both, but never both at the same time.
John and Jim at yahoo.ai-philosophy.com