tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post8817629202167513915..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Robert Marks - Five Years Later, Still No Answers!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60586806639382038142020-02-09T05:00:39.140-05:002020-02-09T05:00:39.140-05:00In your world does "probably" mean "...In your world does "probably" mean "something I pulled out of my butt for which there is no actual evidence"?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-28198116532522841122020-02-06T09:53:54.956-05:002020-02-06T09:53:54.956-05:00If you give me two particular pictures as computer...If you give me two particular pictures as computer files, one of Mt. Fuji, the other of Mt. Rushmore, I would agree that they probably contain the same amount of information, by any reasonable definition of information.<br /><br />However, I doubt that was Robert Marks was talking about. He was probably talking about something like what I was suggesting, how fast it takes to draw each mountain.Betzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58308021990126087342020-02-06T05:36:12.823-05:002020-02-06T05:36:12.823-05:00I've already explained twice that the time to ...I've already explained twice that the time to create a painting has nothing to do with it. You seem immune to understanding this.<br /><br />Also, the original claim was not about the information in Mt. Rushmore, but rather a <i>picture</i> of Mt. Rushmore. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49514053232406529322020-02-05T17:23:44.667-05:002020-02-05T17:23:44.667-05:00Suppose the above experiment were conducted by a r...Suppose the above experiment were conducted by a reputable objective scientist and the results came out as I predicted above. Would you then admit that Mt. Rushmore contains more information than Mt. Fuji?Betzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-15264205071010010132020-02-05T17:10:27.156-05:002020-02-05T17:10:27.156-05:00You continue to make the same silly error. Time t...You continue to make the same silly error. Time to produce something has little to with its Kolmogorov complexity. <br /><br />You also have the burden of proof reversed: it's not up to me to conduct any experiment. You are the one making the claim, you do the work.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-88150691790483304772020-02-05T10:32:10.139-05:002020-02-05T10:32:10.139-05:00As I said before, you are seeing trees while I am ...As I said before, you are seeing trees while I am seeing the forest. Whether we are talking about Kolmogorov complexity or computational complexity is irrelevant to my point. <br /><br />Furthermore, I do have evidence, or at least an experiment that would produce the evidence that you require to be convinced:<br /><br />Do the following experiment on 100 artists: Ask them to produce a picture of Mt. Fuji and Mt. Rushmore, in their fastest time possible such that their pictures could be recognized as Mt. Fuji and Mt. Rushmore. Time them for both of their drawings.<br /><br />All of the artists should take a much longer time to paint Mt. Rushmore than Mt. Fuji. This would prove that Mt. Rushmore has more information than Mt. Fuji. QEDBetzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60252653828926199062020-02-05T07:33:28.173-05:002020-02-05T07:33:28.173-05:00Translation: "I have no evidence, only asser...Translation: "I have no evidence, only assertions."<br /><br />As for your painter example, now you are confusing computational complexity (a measure of the amount of time to solve a problem) with Kolmogorov complexity (where time is not even considered).<br /><br />You are very, very confused.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-56090835658475741342020-02-04T15:39:46.759-05:002020-02-04T15:39:46.759-05:00Jeffrey, you are looking at the trees. I am lookin...Jeffrey, you are looking at the trees. I am looking at the forest. Actual computing would be a waste of time.<br /><br />Here is another way to do it without any computation. Go to your favorite artist and ask him or her how long it would take to produce a painting that could be recognized as Mt. Fuji and how long it would take to produce a painting that could be recognized as Mt. Rushmore. The longer length of time for Mt. Rushmore could be explained by the fact that there is more information in Rushmore than Fuji.Betzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-62506759703226587602020-02-04T14:28:00.741-05:002020-02-04T14:28:00.741-05:00You seem very confused. BASIC is a universal com...You seem very confused. BASIC is a universal computing model, equivalent to a TM.<br /><br />As for your other remarks, I'm fine with it if you actually do the computation. But so far you haven't. You've just made an assertion. Let's see an actual computation. I will be happy to provide you with the photographs of Fuji and Mt. Rushmore I have in mind.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-9301897946177381232020-02-03T18:07:46.623-05:002020-02-03T18:07:46.623-05:00Jeffrey,
Let the computing model be BASIC compute...Jeffrey,<br /><br />Let the computing model be BASIC computer language for both Mt Fuji and Mt Rushmore and we are done. The fact that the Kolmogorov complexity is not computable for large enough individual instances does not mean one cannot estimate it. Furthermore, one could also use some model of computation that is restricted in some way (for instance, only primitive recursive functions) instead of BASIC. And that would solve the problem of not being computable.<br /><br />This the type of reasoning is used everyday with respect to choosing whether to create computer programs. People estimate how much time it will take to create various computer programs and make decisions based on these estimations as to whether to create them or not. The fact that they are estimations and not exact does not mean they are worthless.Betzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-49355692940543574602020-02-03T17:02:42.618-05:002020-02-03T17:02:42.618-05:00Betzalel: you seem really confused. In the Kolm...Betzalel: you seem really confused. In the Kolmogorov theory, complexity is only defined up to an additive + O(1) term, so not only is not computable for large enough individual instances, but you can't compare two specific examples unless you specify the computing model. <br />=Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-45952953405861126972020-02-02T13:18:41.261-05:002020-02-02T13:18:41.261-05:00Same collection of letters in 2 strings:
you are ...Same collection of letters in 2 strings: <br />you are wrong<br />and<br />raeuw oro yng<br /><br />Only one gives an information about your thinking.<br />Luciano Floridi attempts to explain whether information theory can explain meaning. It doesn't.<br />http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?url=http://uhra.herts.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2299/1825/901828.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1%26isAllowed%3Dy&hl=en&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm2O7XKw4O3CIDbTDWHtzYJEVXnvnQ&nossl=1&oi=scholarrbloggarioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395426404140704805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-66698370700602953712020-02-02T11:38:09.219-05:002020-02-02T11:38:09.219-05:00The algorithmic information complexity of a string...The algorithmic information complexity of a string of zeroes depends on the algorithmic information complexity of the length of the string. This is not a monotonic function.<br /><br />Here is another question: What has more information (the algorithmic information complexity definition)? <br /><br />A shack or the White House? <br /><br />A grain of sand or an animal?<br /><br />A lightbulb or a Pentium computer?<br /><br />A Model T car or a self driving car?<br /><br />If you don't know, then it is clear to me that the reason is because you are wearing intellectual blinders.<br />Betzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-45884536159842776022020-02-02T07:16:30.690-05:002020-02-02T07:16:30.690-05:00That's nice for you, but it doesn't convin...That's nice for you, but it doesn't convince me at all.<br /><br />For example, consider the following problem. Take a string of n zeroes. Compute its information. Now add some extra zeroes on the end. Does the result have more or less information than the original string? Using your "logic", it seems clear that the new string must have more, but this is in fact not always true.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-36539673048952115442020-02-01T19:36:51.192-05:002020-02-01T19:36:51.192-05:00Not everything requires an argument to be convince...Not everything requires an argument to be convinced that it is true. For instance, I don't need an argument to be convinced that grass is green. Similarly, I do not need an argument to be convinced that an image of Mt. Rushmore take more lines of code to produce than an image of Mt. Fuji. Or that an image of the Mona Lisa requires more code than an image of a stick figure.Betzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-37971227709883644962020-02-01T19:25:17.594-05:002020-02-01T19:25:17.594-05:00"It is obvious" is a clear dodge when yo..."It is obvious" is a clear dodge when you cannot actually produce an argument. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-6487929104364798392020-02-01T18:54:56.522-05:002020-02-01T18:54:56.522-05:00Jeffrey, just look at a generic picture of Fuji. A...Jeffrey, just look at a generic picture of Fuji. And look at a generic picture of Rushmore. It is obvious that the picture of Rushmore is more difficult to reproduce than Fuji. Therefore Rushmore has more information.<br /><br />Not sure how you cannot see this.Betzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-46540503698844133522020-01-31T18:57:49.886-05:002020-01-31T18:57:49.886-05:00For example, this: https://webstockreview.net/pic...For example, this: https://webstockreview.net/pict/getfirst is easily recognized as Mt. Rushmore, with no obvious mountain there.<br /><br />And in any event, the definition of information in the Kolmogorov theory demands lossless compression, so the answer to the question largely depends on exactly which photographs one is talking about.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-51008975446776233402020-01-31T18:03:44.519-05:002020-01-31T18:03:44.519-05:00There is no actual argument presented here, only a...There is no actual argument presented here, only an assertion. You are assuming, for example, that every mountain looks the same as every other mountain. What if Fuji has special Fuji-characteristics that, in order to be recognizable as Fuji, cause it to have more info? And what if Mt. Rushmore would be recognized just by 4 line-drawings of faces, with no mountain at all?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74475444224445033102020-01-31T13:43:36.967-05:002020-01-31T13:43:36.967-05:00Theorem: Mount Fuji has less information than Moun...Theorem: Mount Fuji has less information than Mount Rushmore.<br /><br />Proof: We will use Chaitin's definition of information in his Algorithmic Information Complexity theory:<br /><br />Suppose we have a program F which outputs an image of Mount Fuji that can be recognized by anyone to be an image of Mount Fuji.<br /><br />And suppose we have a program R which outputs an image of Mount Rushmore that can be recognized by anyone to be an image of Mount Rushmore.<br /><br />Let K(F) the minimum number of possible bits in program F and let K(R) be the minimum number of possible bits in program R.<br /><br />Clearly K(R)>K(F), since program R must output an image that looks like the faces on Mount Rushmore as well as an image of a mountain, while program F only has to output an image of a mountain with no man-made structures. QEDBetzalelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15581256306943213211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-14471625633016742142020-01-21T15:08:34.404-05:002020-01-21T15:08:34.404-05:00Thank you for that. I appreciate the reference. (S...Thank you for that. I appreciate the reference. (Seems like it is related to game theory.) While goal-oriented communication sounds like an interesting idea, I'm not sure their work relates directly to the recent attempts to quantify structured/useful information. Several of these attempts to find a productive definition of quantified information that captures a quality for which Kolmogorov complexity is not particularly well suited relate directly to one or another sort of randomness deficiency. What if any significance do you see in this? Do you see these as fitting into general categories of the informational for which the concepts of Kolmogorov complexity and Shannon information do not account? If so, how might you characterize these senses of what is informational? Prōtos Ēgapēsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17532049621858712402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4754221335602695162020-01-15T18:09:47.272-05:002020-01-15T18:09:47.272-05:00I think the Vitanyi's ideas are good. I mysel...I think the Vitanyi's ideas are good. I myself am a fan of the approach of Oded Goldreich, Brendan Juba, Madhu Sudan, in their paper, "A theory of goal-oriented communication". I should note that none of these ideas have anything to do with "intelligent design", nor do any of the ID advocates seem to be up on this literature.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-4798265120257658592020-01-15T16:30:06.793-05:002020-01-15T16:30:06.793-05:00I wonder what you make of Paul Vitanyi's work ...I wonder what you make of Paul Vitanyi's work on 'Meaningful Information.' While it is only one example of a long list of similar proposals, much of this kind of work seems directed at characterizing what is commonly understood as information from either an epistemic or goal-directed point of view, such as the way engineers or knowledge workers would speak of 'information.' Similarly authors developing notions such as computational depth (e.g. Fortnow) refer to such quantities as 'useful information.' I think most of these sort of concepts are defined using supporting concepts of Kolmogorov complexity and some also make use of concepts introduced by Shannon. Gell-Mann, Bennett, Adriaans, etc. all seem to think that on its own, Kolmogorov complexity is not a good fit for talking about the sorts of structured complexity that correspond to more familiar notions of information and knowledge. <br /> Prōtos Ēgapēsenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17532049621858712402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-22274516525653276842019-10-24T10:30:24.270-04:002019-10-24T10:30:24.270-04:00You don't seem to realize that a random text s...You don't seem to realize that a random text string generated by coin flipping has, w.h.p., the maximum possible amount of information.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-42134882299692618142019-10-22T20:09:03.142-04:002019-10-22T20:09:03.142-04:00Jeffrey Shallit said...
In response to "What ...Jeffrey Shallit said...<br />In response to "What units do we use to measure "meaningful information", and exactly how is it calculated? Please give an example and show your work." <br /><br />I respectfully submit my work in which the unit of "meaninglessness" is defined and used in an example that shows how "meaningful information" can be identified, described, analysed and therefore measured.<br /><br />MEANINGLESSNESS - SI symbol MSSSS, is defined as "way nor furnished sir procuring therefore but. Warmth far manner myself active are cannot called. Set her half end girl rich met. Me allowance departure an curiosity ye. In no talking address excited it conduct. Husbands debating replying overcame blessing he it me to domestic. <br /><br />Among going manor who did. Do ye is celebrated it sympathize considered. May ecstatic did surprise elegance the ignorant age. Own her miss cold last. It so numerous if he outlived disposal. How but sons mrs lady when. Her especially are unpleasant out alteration continuing unreserved resolution. Hence hopes noisy may china fully and. Am it regard stairs branch thirty length afford."1.<br /><br />In conclusion "touchrs I as ctriganed arkeye ad agad catiour, ious, I a Baidur. Mowiluredorkepior thevisknonol scagr s o fe ark ar ay. Martouro, r mo we sos, I fo ad Sowon ce agesctr t Filatepofir rlilcedeskeses Man Maillontidede fo, Ther Mowasks allyeprers ot'sche, S arouss ag Sort teepr Ruskepige ai"wivigns pluskelieit I ft fo sctive Thaiskseplims ag ce I avimaiga wiso Thatre mo y.<br /><br />I as. Sor on Bate ntiow be I obrkear a Thinous ngaio I ar im: t careft y a o blagagear St May. marire Magr Fis fthar ara the w" 2,3.<br /><br />References:<br />1. https://randomtextgenerator.com/ (it may differ when checked)<br />2. http://www.richkni.co.uk/php/text/text.php Generated using settings: Chars=500 and Order=2 on input text taken from:<br />3. http://recursed.blogspot.com/2019/09/robert-marks-five-years-later-still-no.htmlbloggarioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395426404140704805noreply@blogger.com