4 ms·
Well, I guess it basically goes to show how hard it is to determine the actual kolmogorov complexity (even once specifying a particular encoding of a Turing Mac
by archgoon 15y ago
Well, I guess it basically goes to show how hard it is to determine the actual kolmogorov complexity (even once specifying a particular encoding of a Turing Machine) of a string, but the following is a new upper bound on the complexity (in Python) of the second string.
print '00011101001000101101001000101111010100000100111101'
print bin(128141569638717)[2:]
In general, any string of 1s and 0s will be compressible using this method in python once the binary number is greater than 212 (you break even at 211). However, again, I only claim this to be an upperbound ;). (also assuming that invoking built-ins isn't cheating).
- MathProgramming 15y agoIn the context of Turing machines, the output is really a _binary_ string, not a string of arbitrary characters. So in a sense, those two programs are the same thing. But of course, the Kolmogorov complexity of any number n is bounded by log(n) + c.
- mmphosis 15y agoprint "000"+bin(0x748b48bd413d)[2:]
- archgoon 15y agoah... good catch :)