Re: Would you call this a paradox?

"Doug Wedel" <dougwedel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:lcWdnaJnwa-X-__VnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Frederick Williams" <frederick.williams2@[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?

No.

There is no reason to think this is true, and its almost certainly false.


>
> It leaves the definition of "information" entirely untouched.  I was 
> merely asking whether
> Shannon and Kolmogorov's definition of "information" led to a paradox.

Its not a paradox; its merely surprising.