By Jeeves, it's rentropy!! Sean and Stephen are absolutely thoughtful popularizers, but complexity, not entropy, is what they are truly interested in talking a

By Jeeves, it's rentropy!! Sean and Stephen are absolutely thoughtful popularizers, but complexity, not entropy, is what they are truly interested in talking about. Although it doesn't make complexity less scary, here's something Sean's been working on for more than a decade. The paper seems to be more accessible to the layman than he thinks.. https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6903 https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6903 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=762 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=762 [When practitioners say "entropy", they mean RELATIVE ENTROPY, which is another can of worms.. rentropy is the one that is observer dependent: "That's Relative as in Relativity". Entropy by itself is simple, blame von Neumann for making it live rent-free] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_entropy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_entropy @nyrikki below hints (too softly, imho) at this: >You can also approach the property that people often want to communicate when using the term entropy as effective measure 0 sets, null cover, martingales, kolmogorov complexity, compressibility, set shattering, etc...