Re: Would you call this a paradox?

On Jun 25, 12:15=A0am, William Elliot <ma...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Doug Wedel wrote:
> > Both Claude Shannon and Andrey Kolmogorov define the quantity of
> > information contained in a string in terms of the number of bits
> > required to specify the string. =A0This seems eminently reasonable --
t=
he
> > fewer the bits required to specify a string, the less "information" it
> > contains -- but it leads ineluctably to the conclusion that
information
> > is at its maximum in random numbers.
>
> > Is it a contradiction to say that random numbers contain
"information",=
 much
> > less "maximum information"? =A0Is it counterintuitive?
>
> It requires infinitely many bits to specify a random number.

Grossly false.


> If it didn't then it wouldn't be random. =A0

More nonsense.

Consider, for example, a number drawn uniformly at random from
the set {1,2}.