X-Message-Number: 8630
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:25:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: Digital Shakespear
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 25 Sep 1997 "John P. Pietrzak" <> Wrote:
>(a) You give AIC as possible definiton of complexity.
And then immediately pointed out it's shortcomings and said nobody has a good
definition of complexity, but that doesn't mean the word is meaningless,
just definitionless.
>(b) I refute claim, asking for more detail (particularly involving
>string compressibility).
Since the AIC of anything is the smallest digital string that can produce it,
then it must be directly related to string compressibility.
>(c) You state that string compressability is not involved (in AIC?)
I most certainly did not state that or even anything close to it.
>and that the term complexity is out of bounds when describing the
>definition of the term complexity.
True, it's because I'm not a great fan of circular definitions. To say that
complexity is the complexity of the algorithm, or even the complexity of X ,
is more like a joke than a definition.
>Then you agree with me, the AIC is NOT a measure of algorithmic
>complexity.
I do indeed agree with you about that, even though neither of us has a
definition on complexity.
>Ah. Unfortunately, grasshopper, you have underestimated the power
>ofthe "mark". What is a mark? Anything you want it to be.
No. If your only option is putting down a mark or failing to do, as in a
Turing machine, then one mark can only represent 2 things.
>I am certainly allowed to use a language containing two particular
>marks, those being "printf" and the string I want to print. I then
>place those two marks on the tape, and have a truly trivial
>algorithm for the TM to execute.
I'm afraid I don't see your point.
>Ok. Now, let me assume that you were talking about a TM using a
>binary language,
Obviously, did I really have to spell that out? We are talking about a Turing
Machine here, the entire idea is to reduce a computer to simplest possible
level so we can study it, and that means parts that can change in only 2 ways.
Turing machines have no "printf" statements, they don't distinguish between
data and instructions, not at the lowest level, and that's what we're
debating. It does not understand "algorithms", it understands nothing except
the difference between a zero and a one on a tape. Complex things are ALWAYS
made of very simple parts so that doesn't mean that at a higher level A
Turing Machine doesn't understand a Shakespearean sonnet, but it's not very
surprising that a tiny part does not have all the properties that the whole
system has. The synaptic transmitter dopamine does not understand the poem
either, but if it's part of the brain of an English professor it doesn't mean
the entire brain doesn't understand it.
>if you are talking about the size of the algorithm as being the
>total number of bits used to represent the algorithm on the tape,
>you are indeed correct,
Of course that's what I'm talking about, remember we were discussing a
Turing Machine.
>there are algorithms to print certain strings which are smaller than
>an algorithm containing the verbatim string itself.
That's exactly what a ZIP file is.
>I can only imagine that you're bringing up the AIC as a straw man
>set up for you to tear down.
I said figuring out the trillionth digit of PI was a complex task, you said
it was simple and as "proof" you presented a computer program that could do
it,... eventually. You said because the program was short that proved the
task was simple. I said your proof was flawed, and it is, but if AIC really
was complexity then your proof would have been valid. But it's not so it
isn't.
>axiom 1) You chose several examples of intelligence.
Yes, I did that.
>axiom 2) You did _not_ choose them randomly.
I like to think that my putting various things in a category and putting a
label on it called "intelligence" was not random and they all have something
in common, but I'm human, I make mistakes, I could be wrong.
>thm 3) (from 1 & 2) You must have used something other than
>random choice.
Yes, if it's not random then it must have been something else.
>axiom 4) In my world, "not random" == "follows rules" == "has
>definition".
No! In formal logic you can say "if A and B then C" but our brains do not
work on formal logic, they use rules of thumb like "if A and B then usually
something close to C".
>thm 5) (from 3 & 4) You used a definition of intelligence.
No. I had no definition, I put them in the same category labeled
"intelligence" only because I've found from experience they often, but not
always, work well together.
>axiom 6) You did not use a definition of intelligence.
Axiom 6 is correct.
>One of the axioms must be incorrect:
Axioms 1, 3 and 6 are very correct.
Axiom 2 is mostly correct.
Axioms 4 and 5 are dead wrong.
>(John develops nasty grin on face) Ok, guy, tell me, what is a
>stochastic rule of thumb?
Let me give a concrete example, "if I flip a coin 1000 times then usually
I will see heads about 500 times" or "if I flip a coin 1000 times I am
unlikely to find heads exactly 500 times". Yes, a mathematician could
calculate more precisely and replace vague words like "usually" and "about"
and "unlikely" but this is certainly not how our brains work, we don't make
such calculations in everyday life, most people don't know how and in fact
nobody knew how to do it until a few hundred years ago, but people must have
had something close to my to my rule of thumb in their mind for many
thousands of years
>How do you know when you are properly following a rule
>stochastically and when you aren't?
Only one way, experimentally. See if it's useful, see if it works. If I fly
to Sweden often and the first person I ever see is a very large, pale,
Japanese man playing an unpleasant musical instrument then the following rule
of thumb does not work and will have to be abandoned.
"If you travel to Sweden the first person you see when you get off the
airplane is unlikely to be an albino sumo wrestler playing the bagpipes.
>I want your (rigorous!) definition here. ;) )
Yes, I know you do.
>What is beautiful?
I can point to things that are beautiful, I can't tell you what beauty is.
>You write this material with the underlying assumtion that such
>things as people, beauty, and bagpipes are already understood by me.
Exactly, and a very good assumption on my part too.
>What if I didn't know what Sweden was? How would you explain it to
> me?
I'd point to a place on a map and say "Sweden".
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBNCyTu303wfSpid95AQE/ywTvYpkWahhDaOAfLNF+13k4APuepRVgAlXY
VGazWx/syKq5rOZr3IC0zorB13KgaoufIj86SnX94/25IOvebmGnPOi4LMSgoSUe
ZyyZ2S3feW+vW30yoM8rQW4S7E1GB+5kGNqWbuspP3na7QW+gBiwK7oPVhFKV3TF
5LvsZNr1RSdB2p1lwaZNtv028OgkASQYU9YnnXMO6lubass0Q7g=l72i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8630