Content deleted Content added
→Introduction -- bases other than 2: new section |
Added a question about wording |
||
Line 1:
== Randomness vs. Representability? ==
I wonder a bit why we talk here about *randomness* if actually we talk about "representation"? Specifically, as there is mentioned that *it is usually taken to mean "incompressible"*. So, the actual questions at had seems to be "Can I represent a definite/concrete sequence of letters in an alphabet in terms of an algorithm?". But who claims that "algorithms" are the only way to represent such sequences? Maybe the only *know* way currently. (Who knows?)
And a clear separation from the "statistical randomness" is also not given ... what imho is also not possible, if that randomness is not defined thoroughly either. What seems it doesn't.
It is interesting that this notion of "randomness" still has not died. Because it seems only be needed to express some sort of uncertainty or ignorance -- speak: lack of information.
== RAND is Sigma^0_2 ==
| |||