Jacques M. Mallah wrote:
>On 2 Mar -1, Marchal wrote:
>> Take the self-duplication experiment as a simple illustration, where
>> after having been read I am reconstitued at two different places.
>> Nobody (not even God) can compute where I will find myself after the
>> duplication.
>
>
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Russell Standish wrote:
> > [JM wrote] [&BTW I am getting tired of RS omitting the attribution]
>
> ^^^ Blame my email software. I almost always leave the .signatures in
> to make it obvious who I'm responding to.
Since
Juergen Schmidhuber writes:
> Hal:
>
> >Approximate probabilities based on approximations to the
> >K. complexity of a string are no more computable than precise ones.
> >There is no fixed bound B which allows you to compute the K. complexity
> >of an arbitrary string within accuracy B.
>
> Yo
> Step n owns 2^(n-1) initial segments.
Bruno, why are we discussing this? Sure, in finite time you can compute
all initial segments of size n. In countable time you can compute one
real, or a countable number of reals. But each of your steps needs more
than twice the time required by the previ
The original message was received at Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:28:35 -0800
from smartlst@localhost
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Transcript of session follows -
flist: Strange group or user id
451 [EMAIL PROTECTED] reply: read error fro
5 matches
Mail list logo