X-Message-Number: 8645 Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 21:17:35 -0700 (PDT) From: John K Clark <> Subject: Digital Shakespeare -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mon, 29 Sep 1997 "John P. Pietrzak" <> Wrote: >What I've not brought up here is the question of addressing. The >real computer on your desk uses only two symbols; but the regions >which hold those symbols are all individually addressable. True but just like physical structures, even the most complex data structures are built of very simple parts and there is nothing simpler than an on off switch. >Sir, I happened to be talking about a system that you brought up, >the AIC. AIC is not a system, it is a measurement of the shortest algorithm that can produce a given string, and it is a measurement we can never know, and therefore of very limited usefulness >The encoded length of an algorithm on a 16 bit machine is DIFFERENT >than the encoded length of an algorithm on an 8 bit machine, which >in turn is DIFFERENT than the encoded length of an algorithm on a >Turing Machine. So what? >Wouldn't you think, then, that this means the results you achieve >from your much more fundamental binary Turing Machine w.r.t. the AIC >would NOT apply to other processors? NO, and what does the AIC have to do with the price of eggs? In general a Turing Machine will never be running the shortest program that can produce a given output, or to be more precise, it might be but we can't prove that it is. >1) You say determining Nth digit of Pi is complex. >2) I say determining Nth digit of Pi time-consuming, not complex. >3) You say time-consumption is complexity, bring up AIC as definition >of complexity without time, and refute AIC, thus supporting your claim. OK. >4) I also refute AIC, on grounds other than time-based. Yes, but your other grounds seemed to be largely, I just don't like it. >5) You question second refutation, eventually describing AIC on TM. I said that every computer, even a massively parallel one, can be reduced to the same model, a Universal Turing Machine with a sequential tape of only 2 symbols. I said that this was a very powerful idea because it allowed us to figure out properties that all computers must have in common regardless of their superficial differences, like the number of bits their processors can handle at one time. I said nothing about AIC in this context, I did not say that the program running on the Universal Turing Machine must be the shortest one possible that could emulate the real world computer because we can never know what that program is. >6) I use H-U TM definition to show simplest solution to AIC is >trivial on TM (encoding C language style "printf" statement in FSA). But you don't know that just copying a string is the shortest way to reproduce it, in fact that would only be true if the string in question was random. Yes, most strings are random but you can never prove that any particular one is. >This forms my refutation of your refutation of my refutation of AIC, And this forms my refutation of your refutation of my refutation of your refutation of ... ah, I'm sorry, what were we talking about? (:>) >do you really believe that the category [intelligence ], beyond >inclusion or exclusion of members, is meaningless? No, its not meaningless. >Is there no other important relationship between the members other >than the fact that they are members? That's the only relationship I know of but that's enough. For example, putting Newton, Einstein and Turing in the category "intelligent" seems to work very well together in the real world, adding a oak tree to that category does not. >what axioms you choose to believe in are up to you, but the logic >will still work If you pick the wrong axiom, like "poison will not harm me", you'll end up dead. >You can't expect people to answer questions truthfully when their >own survival is at stake; Yeah, you're right, but you'd think that if your survival was at stake it would be extra important solve puzzles correctly, but for reasons I don't understand it just doesn't seem to work that way. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBNDHJ5H03wfSpid95AQFfPgTvftZGIqRScd2+A+o3aVJO241VIRAY6n5x z/YThw3pF6QWvRFPGs8cKeEPfJS4xrcfhnbFJ0925RzQb/DyerUa8eSgEgguOlqt LsUTPVt1ubu9Yp6V1NsS77wtpnglFp8FaVsllL7OKwBJwLd7N+CC3iz7pzj6FhOJ jYjM/5hFXnuQw/rKhS/GZEHdOWzMny+AgMCu8Ysexrp3GRIZ6SA=p4Mf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8645