Prev: new names for trig ratios
Next: Precompactness
From: David Bernier on 28 May 2010 16:02
Ludovicus wrote:
> On 27 mayo, 20:44, Timothy Murphy<gayle...(a)eircom.net> wrote:
>>> How can a definition like this be "contradicted"?
>> You may have a different definition of complexity,
>> or a different idea of what complexity should mean,
>> but that's life.
>> If you feel it is confusing, why not call it "Chaitin complexity"?
>>
> Thanks. I agree. Henceforth I will do the distinction.
> I found Chaitin Complexity damaging because it destroys the lexicon of
> most languages. Conveys to the notion that, in a system is more
> important the number
> of parts than the interaction between them. It sustains the falsity
> that feedbacks
> do not augment complexity because it consumes little bits.
> Make ridiculous the labor of 2500 years struggling to resolve the
> problems of prime numbers. A sequence of so low complexity.
> The 1100 pages of Wolfram's book: "A new Kind of Science" time of
> labours lost.
> Ludovicus

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

-- T. S. Eliot


From: Ludovicus on 28 May 2010 18:06
On May 28, 4:02 pm, David Bernier <david...(a)videotron.ca> wrote:

> Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
>       -- T. S. Eliot

Very important questions.
But. Without information there is not knowledge.
Without knowledge there is not awareness.
Without awareness there is not liberty.
And without liberty why to live?
Ludovicus
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: new names for trig ratios
Next: Precompactness