most dense object?
- Thread starter hiimwayne
- Start date
- Status
Re: Re:chroot
- Warren
No, retard, you're wrong. If you feed a random string into a compression engine, you'll see zero compression. If you feed an english string into a compression engine, it will be compressed. The fundamental difference is that the english string has structure; the random string does not. The compression engine does not know english -- all it knows is that there are patterns or structure in the english string, but none in the random string. Intelligence does not define information content; the dependence on one bit to other bits defines information content. It's a mathematical definition, independent of any language. In a random string, each bit is wholly independent of all other bits; in a language string (any language), each bit is generally related to other bits.
You are nuts. I highly doubt that you share my opinion, since you can't even grasp the concept of information content of a string that I gave above. Provide me a link to your "thesis," and I'll specifically show you how your opinion differs from mine.
- Warren
Nonsense. Patterns exist in random strings. Random string can have a form of English string (by accident). Your compression engine is some gueswork crap. How would it treat an English sentence created accidentally by a random generator and the same sentence of not random origin?
<a href=http://www.sciforums.com/t9725/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12312>link Developmnet of knowledge</a>
No, retard, you're wrong. There are no global patterns in a random string, by definition. Each bit is independent of all other bits; there are no dependencies.
I'll give you a simple example: the alphabetic string zxcvqz is six symbols long. If you were to obtain a length of random characters, you will find this six symbol combination is as likely as any other six symbol combination, and occurs with equal frequency. If you were to obtain a length of enligh text, you will find that it will never occur -- ever -- in english.
There is a fundamental, precise mathematical definition of a random string: that every symbol is entirely independent of all the others in the string. This is clearly not true of english.
The fact that a random generator has a finite probability of producing the works of Shakespeare has nothing to do with the formal definition of randomness. Given a large enough sample (i.e. even larger than the "accidental" works of Shakespeare) you will not find any global patterns.
I'm going to refer you to the comp.compression FAQ, which has sections on algorithmic information theory, and, specifically, Kolmogorov complexity, which is the mathematical formalism of randomness.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/
The FAQ then provides some references to treatments on Kolmogorov complexity, one of which is a textbook.
Despite your ignorance, my compression engine statement is not some guesswork -- the field of algorithmic information theory is actually an important part of mathematics and computer science. Here's an abstract article on Kolmogorov complexity:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
The only thing I said to you was "let me guess -- you're high?"
And I really don't see any indication of information or complexity theory in your post. I see that you feel the number of unknowns in science is increasing faster than the number of knowns. This is certainly a reasonable opinion -- it'd be hard to "prove" one way or another.
- Warren
chroot
From the link you posted:
Is the statement below the ends to the means, so to speak, which will ensure a prize ? Could you briefly explain the end result and why it would succeed the challenge ?
the contestant will send me a decompressor and a compressed file, which will together total in size less than the original data file, and which will be able to restore the compressed file to the original state.
Are you working on the problem ?
From the link you posted:
Is the statement below the ends to the means, so to speak, which will ensure a prize ? Could you briefly explain the end result and why it would succeed the challenge ?
the contestant will send me a decompressor and a compressed file, which will together total in size less than the original data file, and which will be able to restore the compressed file to the original state.
Are you working on the problem ?
re:chroot
You avoided my question: you would have to admit that the engine can no way distinguish between the two strings unless it is familiar with the English language.
In random string patterns appear, aks any gambler you know. If there (appears to be) a random string which doesn't show from time to time a pattern it is not trully random (It would probably be a cheat produced by your machine).
You avoided my question: you would have to admit that the engine can no way distinguish between the two strings unless it is familiar with the English language.
In random string patterns appear, aks any gambler you know. If there (appears to be) a random string which doesn't show from time to time a pattern it is not trully random (It would probably be a cheat produced by your machine).
Re: re:chroot
Since you replied only four minutes after I posted my links to information theory and Kolmogorov complexity, I can conclude that you did not, in fact, learn about information theory and Kolmogorov complexity. Instead, you are going to stick to your uneducated hypothesis that "random strings and english strings are not fundamentally different," a hypothesis that is demonstrably false and only held by you alone.
Good luck.
- Warren
I would certainly not have to admit this at all; this is my point.
A string which displays any form of global pattern is by definition not random.
Since you replied only four minutes after I posted my links to information theory and Kolmogorov complexity, I can conclude that you did not, in fact, learn about information theory and Kolmogorov complexity. Instead, you are going to stick to your uneducated hypothesis that "random strings and english strings are not fundamentally different," a hypothesis that is demonstrably false and only held by you alone.
Good luck.
- Warren
This is just an example of Kolmogorov complexity at work. The idea is that every string has some minimal representation. The pigeon-hole problem, counting problem, and so on provide the "restrictions" on how small the representation can be.
The uncompressed document is often called the 'corpus.' Essentially, by finding a decompressor and compressed document which together have fewer bits than the corpus, you have found a representation of the corpus that is smaller than the corpus itself.
The mathematics of Kolmogorov complexity are a proof that there exist strings, of any size you want, whose smallest representations are the strings themselves. Mike Goldman is simply offering to send anyone who takes his challenge a file containing a string which can be mathematically proven to be its own smallest representation -- i.e. a string which is truly random, and thus completely incompressible.
Not in this lifetime!Are you working on the problem ?
- Warren
Last edited:
Re:Chroot
As I thougth it was a cheat and waste of time to read. They see randomnes as a basically non repetitive number of random elements. If they discover a pattern (eg repeating series wich always present itself in a form (eg (very simplified) 1,2,3, 3,3 ,4,4,1,5,1,2,3) they can replace 1,2,3 pattern with a shorter presentation. Strings which contain 1,2,3 are then not random even if they were randomly produced. It is filtering randomnes with inteligence:
Imagine two containers one with white and the other with blue balloons in a big room. You open the containers and let the ballooons fly, they mingle and mingle. You can with some inteligence sort the baloons so that all the white ones wil come to the right half of the room and blue ones in the other half. But this sorting can also happen by accident, without the inteligence. But your system wil read the inteligence into this happening and declare the situation “not random”. Randomness must include patterns if they were randomly created. Your machine is flawed.
As I thougth it was a cheat and waste of time to read. They see randomnes as a basically non repetitive number of random elements. If they discover a pattern (eg repeating series wich always present itself in a form (eg (very simplified) 1,2,3, 3,3 ,4,4,1,5,1,2,3) they can replace 1,2,3 pattern with a shorter presentation. Strings which contain 1,2,3 are then not random even if they were randomly produced. It is filtering randomnes with inteligence:
Imagine two containers one with white and the other with blue balloons in a big room. You open the containers and let the ballooons fly, they mingle and mingle. You can with some inteligence sort the baloons so that all the white ones wil come to the right half of the room and blue ones in the other half. But this sorting can also happen by accident, without the inteligence. But your system wil read the inteligence into this happening and declare the situation “not random”. Randomness must include patterns if they were randomly created. Your machine is flawed.
Re: Re:Chroot
In a non-random string, (123) may occur with a greater frequency than other triplets. In such a case, the string may be compressed (represented more simply) by replacing (123) with a shorter representation.
The absence or presence of (123) is not a measure of its randomness -- it is the frequency of occurence (as compared to other triplets) that can be a measure of randomness. If the triplet (123) occurs with the same frequency as all other triplets, then the string can be said to be random.
This problem is usually expressed by the following fact: it is possible (though very unlikely) that, in the course of their random trajectories, all of the air molecules in a room might find themselves all up in the corners of the room, and you'd suffocate. It's not impossible -- just extremely unlikely.
If all that you tell me is that the air molecules suddenly all wound up in the corners (or that your balloons somehow all found themselves nicely divided) it tells me nothing about the randomness or non-randomness of the system. It's one data point. The statistics of the air molecules or balloons are only realized in the limit as the time reaches infinity. If I come into a room and find all the air in the corners, I can't tell you immediately if it's the result of an intelligence or the result of random motion; if I watch it for some time, I can be more sure. If I watch it forever, I can be precisely sure.
The argument you're making, I believe, is the following one: if you give me the short string 'a,' I cannot tell you if it's random or the product of intelligence -- and you're right. If, however, you give me a long string (the actual numerical meaning of "long" being dependent upon the mechanics of the actual problem), I can tell you immediately if it's a language or a random string, with no knowledge whatsoever of the language. In a random string, every symbol is independent; in any language, symbols are dependent upon each other.
And ProCop, since you don't belive in all this "cheating" and "wasting of time," perhaps you'd like to take up Mike Goldman's challenge?
- Warren
You probably didn't understand most of it, knowing you. You indicate in this post that you really don't understand the meaning of probabilities.
In a random string, (123) is just as likely as (426) or (999). You can't compress a random string by replacing (123) with a smaller representation, because it doesn't occur any more frequently than any other triplet.
In a non-random string, (123) may occur with a greater frequency than other triplets. In such a case, the string may be compressed (represented more simply) by replacing (123) with a shorter representation.
The absence or presence of (123) is not a measure of its randomness -- it is the frequency of occurence (as compared to other triplets) that can be a measure of randomness. If the triplet (123) occurs with the same frequency as all other triplets, then the string can be said to be random.
You're making the same mistake made by millions of high school students everyday -- confusing probability with frequency of measurement. Probability and statistics emerge only over a large sample set or a large amount of time.
This problem is usually expressed by the following fact: it is possible (though very unlikely) that, in the course of their random trajectories, all of the air molecules in a room might find themselves all up in the corners of the room, and you'd suffocate. It's not impossible -- just extremely unlikely.
If all that you tell me is that the air molecules suddenly all wound up in the corners (or that your balloons somehow all found themselves nicely divided) it tells me nothing about the randomness or non-randomness of the system. It's one data point. The statistics of the air molecules or balloons are only realized in the limit as the time reaches infinity. If I come into a room and find all the air in the corners, I can't tell you immediately if it's the result of an intelligence or the result of random motion; if I watch it for some time, I can be more sure. If I watch it forever, I can be precisely sure.
By definition, a random string is one where every symbol is unrelated to all other symbols. This is the mathematical definition of randomness. I have now said this at least three times, but you seem to be ignoring it. In such a random string, there are no global patterns -- because every symbol is entirely independent of all the other symbols. There may be patterns at small scales, but at larger scales (i.e. as the number of symbols approaches infinity) there will be none.
The argument you're making, I believe, is the following one: if you give me the short string 'a,' I cannot tell you if it's random or the product of intelligence -- and you're right. If, however, you give me a long string (the actual numerical meaning of "long" being dependent upon the mechanics of the actual problem), I can tell you immediately if it's a language or a random string, with no knowledge whatsoever of the language. In a random string, every symbol is independent; in any language, symbols are dependent upon each other.
And ProCop, since you don't belive in all this "cheating" and "wasting of time," perhaps you'd like to take up Mike Goldman's challenge?
- Warren
re:Chroot
".....(i.e. as the number of symbols approaches infinity) there will be none." Are you speaking here in terms of probability of low degree or 100% impossibility?
Further you have some holy believe in randomness. In your vieuw it is more ordered than the mathematics itself.
Has it ever occured to you that randomnes may be a pure chaos and still present itself in an endless orderly pattern - (was my DvD player created (basically) by God, by accident, (by Philips?), by all three together?
You are missing a major point: chaos can spontaneously create order: look the at the world and admire its beauty (avoid mirrors).
The other possibility is listing in a monastery?
You see some other possibility I overlooked?
".....(i.e. as the number of symbols approaches infinity) there will be none." Are you speaking here in terms of probability of low degree or 100% impossibility?
Further you have some holy believe in randomness. In your vieuw it is more ordered than the mathematics itself.
Has it ever occured to you that randomnes may be a pure chaos and still present itself in an endless orderly pattern - (was my DvD player created (basically) by God, by accident, (by Philips?), by all three together?
You are missing a major point: chaos can spontaneously create order: look the at the world and admire its beauty (avoid mirrors).
The other possibility is listing in a monastery?
You see some other possibility I overlooked?
Last edited:
I second the notion!
Procop, you are a complete crackpot, not worthy of having a discusion with because you intentionally ignore how ignorant your blatent statements are which you wont even back up, admitting yourself that any more spoken word on the subject would have you prove yourself wrong.
Procop, you are a complete crackpot, not worthy of having a discusion with because you intentionally ignore how ignorant your blatent statements are which you wont even back up, admitting yourself that any more spoken word on the subject would have you prove yourself wrong.
Re:Chroot
Such string does not exist. Imagine you have two nummers, 1,2 and the "random generator" produces the following string:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
the chanche that the following nummer wil be two is higher than chance that it wil be 1. They are related this way.
Further. Randomnes in eternity must eventually create order. With the endlessly encreasing number of endless random strings the chance of randomly created endless orderly string encreases. After the endless random proceses in the space not by miracle, not by god but by an inevitable accident the universe came into being.
Such string does not exist. Imagine you have two nummers, 1,2 and the "random generator" produces the following string:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
the chanche that the following nummer wil be two is higher than chance that it wil be 1. They are related this way.
Further. Randomnes in eternity must eventually create order. With the endlessly encreasing number of endless random strings the chance of randomly created endless orderly string encreases. After the endless random proceses in the space not by miracle, not by god but by an inevitable accident the universe came into being.
Re: Re:Chroot
- Warren
No, retard, you're wrong. This is the same trick that's played on gamblers all around the world -- you think if you see red enough times in row, you're more likely to see black on the next spin. This is not correct at all! Each spin of the roulette wheel is entirely independent of its history. It doesn't matter if it rolled red a million times in a row -- the next spin has exactly a 50% chance of being red the next time, too. Each spin is not dependent on past spins. Each spin is entirely unrelated to other spins. It is random.
This doesn't even makes any sense, so I'm not going to respond to it.
- Warren
Re
n Radioactive Waves
Why do you not provide your suggestion of the densiest matter, in place of expressing repeatedly your dicontent with my suggestion. It would be a more productive attitude. were you in such a posesiton of knowledge not to only oposing others but to make your own propositions....
n Radioactive WavesWhy do you not provide your suggestion of the densiest matter, in place of expressing repeatedly your dicontent with my suggestion. It would be a more productive attitude. were you in such a posesiton of knowledge not to only oposing others but to make your own propositions....
- Status