On Jul 7, 8:21=A0pm, Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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
--=
the
> > > fewer the bits required to specify a string, the less "information"
i=
t
> > > contains -- but it leads ineluctably to the conclusion that
informati=
on
> > > 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}.
> Consider, how is entropy calculated.
> Only frequencies of letters or symbols are im****tant. Their ordering
> has no effect on the result. Types in printer's case, if they are all
use=
d,
> have the same entropy as ordered symbols in the final print. But
informat=
ion
> is contained in the proper ordering of words. Or otherwise: All
permutati=
ons
> Have the same probability, and thus entropy.
> Authors can control short distances by considerate choice of words
(short=
,
> long, few repeatings) within few lines. Long distances are not
controll=
ed,
> therefore they appear to be random.
kunzmilan
|
