Replies

Mr Pegleg himself is an expert at cut and paste. And does not realize that the formula for pi was given by Dr Stochastic through his link on post 1107. I posted that formula as a reminder that it was not a complex thing due to that formula as stated by the good doctor himself. I then presented the formula for the solution of the needle problem(note it is a problem not an experiment). Imagined refutations notwithstanding, needles and lines yield pi just as the first formula does. That is pretty clear from the solution. Thus a "random" mechanism yields a non-complex number using the definitions provided by the Doctor. Review.

Post 946 by the good doctor.

Probability of deterministic mechanisms yielding complexity = 0.00.

Probablity of random mechanisms yielding complexity = 1.00.

Probability of chaotic mechanisms yielding complexity can be between 0 and 1 but they take an infinite time to do so.

I don't see Kolmogorov mentioned, and if it were mentioned, I'd like to see a "random" mechanism that only generated uncompressible strings.

Mr Pegleg himself is an expert at cut and paste.

Why thank you. And unlike some people, I don't employ it as a disingenuous device.

And does not realize that the formula for pi was given by Dr Stochastic through his link on post 1107.

Thank you for the complete non sequitur. You add such fine red herrings to these discussions.

I posted that formula as a reminder that it was not a complex thing due to that formula as stated by the good doctor himself.

Yeah. Uh huh. Sure you did. Since that point was not in dispute by anyone, that looks amazingly like yet another red herring.

I then presented the formula for the solution of the needle problem (note it is a problem not an experiment).

Again, without making any attempt whatsoever to make a relevant point thereby in, you know, words. Red herring #3.

Imagined refutations notwithstanding, needles and lines yield pi just as the first formula does.

Gosh, really? By what process exactly? Please describe the process by which one can drop needles on lines and actually "yield pi" -- the exact irrational constant -- as opposed to a rational number which approximates it. We'll wait. Hint: I've already explained in excruciating detail why the needle twiddling fails to actually produce pi. One has to wonder whether the Mr. Confused didn't understand it, or is just pretending not to so that he won't have to admit that his attempted point fell on its face.

That is pretty clear from the solution.

You have a vivid imagination.

Thus a "random" mechanism yields a non-complex number using the definitions provided by the Doctor.

No, it doesn't, for reasons I've already described quite clearly. If you fantasize that it does, feel free to describe the exact process by which one can actually employ the random dropping of needles and produce the exact value of pi. We'll wait.

Review.

Waaaaaay ahead of you.

I'd like to see a "random" mechanism that only generated uncompressible strings.

A mechanism which "only generated uncompressible strings" is a self-contradiction (the reason why is left as an exercise for the reader), as well as yet another red herring. It must be spawning season for those red herrings, they're flying everywhere recently.