[FRIAM] alternative response

[Jon Zingale]

Great! It seems that I am wrong about the restrictions imposed by
language dependence. From this Scientific American article by Chaitin:
http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~km9/Randomness%20and%20Mathematical.pdf

Defining randomness or the simplicity of theories through the
capabilities of the digital computer would seem to introduce a spurious
element into these essentially abstract notions: the peculiarities of
the particular computing machine employed. Different machines
communicate through different computer languages, and a set of
instructions expressed in one of those languages might require more or
fewer bits when the instructions are translated into another language.
Actually, however, the choice of computer matters very little. The
problem can be avoided entirely simply by insisting that the randomness
of all numbers be tested on the same machine. Even when different
machines are employed, the idiosyncrasies of various languages can
readily be compensated for. Suppose, for example, someone has a program
written in English and wishes to utilize it with a computer that reads
only French. Instead of translating the algorithm itself he could
preface the program with a complete English course written in French.
Another mathematician with a French program and an English machine would
follow the opposite procedure. In this way only a fixed number of bits
need be added to the program, and that number grows less significant as
the size of the series specified by the program increases. In practice a
device called a compiler often makes it possible to ignore the
differences between languages when one is addressing a computer.

Thanks again Marcus, a wonderful read.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/