4 ms·
The point is that the outputs of the calculator are fundamentally surprising, in the sense that if any individual programmer could easily know all the expected
by stult 6y ago
The point is that the outputs of the calculator are fundamentally surprising, in the sense that if any individual programmer could easily know all the expected outputs in advance, they wouldn't need the calculator in the first place. Photoshop surprises us by calculating the precise location of millions of pixels based on relatively simple inputs like a handful of clicks on a screen. This logic does not apply to every single imaginable program, but it does apply to the non-trivial ones.
- spaced-out 6y agoSo "surprising" == anything not previously known? That's not the definition I'm used to. I might not know the exact answer to sqrt(10), but I wouldn't be surprised by the answer considering I already know it's between 3 and 4.
- ukj 6y agoIt is Shannon’s definition. Surprise == new information. Lack of surprise == lack of new information.
- js8 6y agoTo add to the other answer, Shannon's information is also sometimes called "surprisal". And it doesn't describe only what is not known, but rather what can be predicted. So if you can predict new information, it has low surprisal, even if it previously wasn't known (with certainty).