4 ms·
Can we define an order of "specialness" on the set of sequences? Because in this case, you have a subset of the non-special sequences which are the least specia
by lgeorget 6y ago
Can we define an order of "specialness" on the set of sequences? Because in this case, you have a subset of the non-special sequences which are the least special of all. Which makes them special.
- colejohnson66 6y agoThe “interesting number paradox.”[0] Basically, if one were to classify numbers into two categories: “interesting” and “uninteresting”, you’d end up with a contradiction as the smallest “uninteresting” number is itself “interesting” for being the smallest in the set. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
- lgeorget 6y agoAh thank you I was looking for the name and couldn't remember it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- goldenkey 6y agoPreventing self-reference until instantiation resolves this paradox. Am I missing something?
- lgeorget 6y agoNo, you didn't miss anything, apart maybe the fact that I wrote this tongue-in-cheek. ;-)
- jcranmer 6y agoKolmogorov complexity is one metric: what is the size of the smallest program that can produce the sequence? (Note that Kolmogorov complexity is not generally computable, because you could solve the halting problem if you can compute it for all sequences).