Re: Would you call this a paradox?

On Jun 25, 5:36 pm, "Doug Wedel" <dougwe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Frederick Williams" <frederick.willia...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:48622DC9.E2CC8684@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Doug Wedel wrote:
>
> >> ineluctably to the conclusion that information is at its maximum in
> >> random
> >> numbers.
>
> > Let's suppose that the digits of pi are "random", i.e. that pi is
> > normal.  Then with an appropriate coding of letters and punctuation
> > marks by strings of digits, pi contains all the works of Shakespeare.
>
> In other words, all normal non-repeating transcendentals contain _all_
> information?
>
> It leaves the definition of "information" entirely untouched.  I was
merely
> asking whether
> Shannon and Kolmogorov's definition of "information" led to a paradox.

>  Let's suppose that the digits of pi are "random".
> This hypothesis can be readily tested.
> The inverse to the binomial distribution is the negative binomial
distribution,
> right?
> Thus distribution of distances between consecutive occurences of symbols
> in information strings can be evaluated. Short distances usually
fluctuate, but
> tails can be described sometimes excellently, by negative binomial,
> exponential, lognormal, and Weibull distributions.
kunzmilan