Re: [PrimeNumbers] Good article, some suggestions
- --- Paul Leyland <pcl@...> wrote:
> > What annoys me about top posting?You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak. Thanks.
> Because you have such a poor memory, short attention span and restricted
> ability to comprehend material that you need to wade all the way again
> through stuff you've already seen to be able to understand the new
> Some of us prefer to get to the meat straight away. Out of
> consideration for your handicap, however, I have not top-posted on this
This has been done to death many times - see
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html for example.
And the oft-seen:
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Like almost all top-post apologists you uses the fallacious "you need
to wade all the way through" argument against bottom-posting, and yet
here we see you shoot a massive hole in your foot - you didn't quote
my whole post did you? You trimmed. That's what responsible bottom
posters do. The ones who include a whole quoted post and then stick
"me too" at the bottom are at least as derided as irresponsible top-
"There isn't one." is /not/ getting to the meat straight away, it's
getting to an uncooked pile of mince, without context. One what? The
last noun seen in the singular was "article", in the subject line.
"Good article" - "there wasn't one". Oh the irony!
> FWIW, I barely believe in randomness. The lack of an intellectuallyThat's why information theorists prefer to talk about random sources,
> satisfying definition of a random number or of a random sequence makes
> me very suspicious of such things.
not random numbers of random sequences. But didn't I already say that?
> Kolmogorov complexity appears, to me, to be much more firmly grounded inIf you're obsessed with looking at sequences, then I guess so. However,
> reality than randomness.
it's still utterly abstract, at least as much as any other view. It's
only something that you can use in terms if you have some kind of
Kolmogorov Oracle. Alas, my reality doesn't include such a beast. You're
just pushed the responsibility for the difficult part somewhere else.
> If forced to give a definition of a random sequence, i'd resort to theLooks rather like "stochastic".
> effectively useless: "that which passes a test or series of tests for a
> random sequence".
Alas < SHA-1(seed), SHA-1(seed+1), SHA-1(seed+2), ... >, without knowledge
of seed, and without a way of finding pre-images to SHA-1(), is stochastic,
and only has Theta(lg(seed)+lg(length)) bits of entropy rather than
I'd modify your definition by changing it to "passes all know tests",
as I'd say one failure should discount it. Not all thing that a sequence
might fail are actaully tests for randomness though.
() ASCII ribbon campaign () Hopeless ribbon campaign
/\ against HTML mail /\ against gratuitous bloodshed
[stolen with permission from Daniel B. Cristofani]
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around