Re: Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- From: kim@xxxxxxxxxxx (Kim G. S. Øyhus)
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:14:00 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1138393782.642729.260300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Kim G. S. Øyhus wrote:
>
>> >You forget that K(s) does not concern itself with the functional aspect
>> >of the string. My definition does concern itself with this aspect of
>> >the string.
>>
>> And you forget that K(s) is defined to use a reference machine, an
>> universal computing device, say an universal Turing machine, which IS
>> a function.
>
>The Turing machine has a function, but this function is independent of
>the string, which it "compresses". The string itself need not have a
>particular function in order to be compressed by the function of the
>Turing machine.
Completely wrong. Yet again you fantasize to make up for your lack of
knowledge.
K.C. is defined to require an universal computer, or universal
recursive function as it is also called. This is a program/function
that takes a string as input and treats that string as a program, as a
function. Thus, the function is directly in the string, which is just
the opposite of what you claimed. And the string is DEcompressed when
taken, not compressed, like you wrote.
>> I have told you this several times now, and you forget,
>> again and again. Why is it so difficult for you to remember that
>> something which is a function, definitively have a function, because
>> it IS a function? Functions HAVE functions because they have themselves.
>
>Again, the string is not functional here. The Turing machine has the
>function - not the string.
And the job of an universal Turing machine is to treat the string as a
description of a Turing machine and run it. Thus, the string has a
function.
>< snip >
>
>> >My definition of functional complexity is the minimum
>> >*uncompressed* size and specificity of a string needed to gain a
>> >particular type of functional system.
>>
>> That is NOT what you wrote earlier. It is also self
>> contradictory. The minimum size is PER DEFINITION compressed. You
>> clearly show that you do not understand this at all.
>
>The minimum size for a particular function of a protein string of
>residues, as part of a larger system of function, is not the same thing
>as it's minimum size that could be coded for by a Turing machine.
>These are different forms of potential compression. One form requires
>that the function of the protein string be maintained while the other
>does not.
Again completely wrong. The protein string could be generated from an
organic Turing machine with organic maintenance. But you are not
capable of understanding why this is an argument and what it is an
argument for.
>> >KC is only concerned with the compressibility of a string given a
>> >system that could decompress it to its original state. A particular
>> >functional system may not be able to sustain such sequence compression
>> >because it needs the uncompressed sequence in order to realize its
>> >function. The compressed state of a functional string would not
>> >necessarily be able to maintain a particular function, such as
>> >flagellar motility.
>>
>> That do not make sense at all. It seems to me that you are saying that
>> compressed systems will not decompress, which is nonsens, or that
>> compressed systems can fail, ignoring that decompressed systems also
>> can fail.
>
>Take a protein sequence and compress it using a Turing machine code.
>That new sequence will not necessarily work, at it is, as part of the
>system from which the original protein sequence was taken. In order to
>work properly, the original protein sequence must maintain a certain
>minimum size and specificity regardless of how it could be compressed
>using this or that formula or Turing machine. It might be able to be
>compressed, using a particular Turing machine, into just a few
>characters, but this compressed form just wouldn't "work" if placed
>back into the original system.
You have misunderstood this completely. The compressed minimal DNA
sequence would somehow construct a biological decompresser. But again,
you will not understand this argument. I even suspect that the
filament of that flagellar moving system is generated by such a
biological decompressor, since it has such a very long repetitive
structure.
>> > The shortest description of a string may not be
>> >translatable into the functional system that the uncompressed string
>> >actually coded for. In fact, it is quite likely that significant
>> >compression of the DNA code for the flagellar system would destroy this
>> >functional ability.
>>
>> If the minimal sequence do
>> not work, then it is not a minimal
>> sequence.
>
>It's certainly not the minimum functional sequence although it might
>actually be the minimum sequence produced by a particular Turing
>machine.
Sigh. K.C. usually uses Turing machines as reference computers, but
that is NOT a requirement. The requirement is that the machines are
universal computers, and there are other systems besides Turing
machine that can do that, like Cellular Automatin 110, Combinatory
Logic, Lisp, and biological machinery in the cell, ribosomes & Co.
The point is, and has been for very long: Cells can be universal
computers.
>> If the compressed sequence do
>> not work, then it is not a compressed
>> sequence.
>
>It certainly could be a compressed sequence, per code, would could be
>decompressed. However, in its compressed state it may not "work"
>properly any more.
O boy. You have really messed this up. You do not even understand that
it is required to work if it is to be a compressed sequence. If it
does not work, then it is a faulty sequence.
>> If it do not work, then it
>> is not valid.
>
>It may still be valid as far as the Turing machine output is concerned.
>It just isn't valid as far as it's original function in its original
>system of function is concerned.
And you still have not understood that the universal computer in
biological systems is not Turing machines.
>> It has lost its output.
>
>It has only lost it's output as far as its original system is
>concerned.
If it has lost its output, then it is not a compression.
>> It has lost its function.
>
>That's true - -
>
>> Your argument is wrong and stupid.
>
>Actually, I believe your argument that functional minimums are the same
>thing as KC is what is off base here.
You believe a lot of wrong stuff.
>< snip >
>
>> Your definition of functional complexity did not include that it
>> should be a part of a system of function, so your argument is wrong.
>
>My definition of functional complexity always included the part a
>particular sequence plays in the overall system of function. The
>functional complexity of this part, as part of the whole, is determined
>by the minimum size and sequence specificity requirements that are
>needed in order for it to do its job in a beneficial way relative to
>the system as a whole. In other words, what is the minimum size and
>specificity requirement for a particular sequence to have the lactase
>function to a minimally selectable benefit to the bacterium as a whole
>in a lactose rich environment? Can this minimum be achieve with just 3
>residues? 10 residues? 100 residues?
>
>You see my point?
I see that you remember wrongly about what you yourself write.
And I can supply you with your definition yet again as evidence that
you are wrong and I am right.
>> >> >This has a lot to do with chaos theory since the concept of randomness
>> >> >plays an important role in the concept of chaos.
>> >>
>> >> No, it does not.
>> >
>> >Are you serious? You are arguing that chaos theory has nothing at all
>> >to do with the concept of randomness?
>>
>> Yes. Chaos theory is about DETERMINISTIC systems which amplify small
>> perturbations. You have not understood what chaos theory is.
>> Deterministic systems are systems without randomness.
>
>Chaotic systems are theoretically deterministic (well, not quite), but
>in practice they aren't deterministic - because of those little
>perturbations you mention. "A system may be perfectly deterministic in
>principle, but its behavior is completely unpredictable in practice.
>This phenomenon was called deterministic chaos." The resulting
>"chaotic" outcome of such a theoretically deterministic system ends up
>having the appearance of true randomness. In this sense then nothing
>is actually random. It only has the appearance of randomness because
>of the chaos problem - i.e., the starting parameters are not known and
>cannot be known, even in theory, to an infinite degree. Therefore,
>randomness and chaos are very closely tied together. What appears to be
>"random" only has this appearance because of chaos theory - because the
>starting parameters where not perfectly knowable.
>
>http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CHAOS.html
Thus, chaos has low K.C. while randomness has maximally high K.C.
In other words: Chaos and radomness are maximally different in their
complexity.
>< snip >
>
>> >> >The gas system is
>> >> >highly chaotic, but has little functional interdependent complexity.
>> >> >The space ship, on the other hand, requires a great deal of structural
>> >> >order and interdependent interaction to achieve its high level of
>> >> >functional complexity.
>> >>
>> >> But your definition of functional complexity is not based on
>> >> structural order and interdependent interaction, so what you just
>> >> wrote do not follow at all. It is simply wrong.
>> >
>> >You are mistaken. My definition of functional complexity IS based on
>> >structural order and interdependent interaction to achieve a particular
>> >type of function - like flagellar motility.
>>
>> NO!
>>
>> I have your written definition here:
>>
>> "Over and over again I've defined functional complexity as the minimum
>> size and specificity requirement needed to achieve a specific type of
>> function."
>>
>> There is no talk about interdependent interaction or structural order
>> there. You wrote instead about the minimum size, just as in K.C.
>
>The minimum size and specificity requirements are a big part of what it
>takes for a piece of a system to be beneficial relative to the whole.
>This has always been strongly implied from the get go Kim. You're just
>trying to build a strawman here.
You imply that beneficial relative to the whole MUST mean that the
parts are interdependent. Yet again wrong, and with no evidence.
And since I quoted your writing werbatim, I gave evidence, not a
strawman, but what you actually really wrote.
>> As for specificity: You have shown that you do not know what
>> specificity is, through your thorough confusion of specificity with
>> density, so I ignore that part of your definition, since you do not
>> know what that part means.
>
>This is ridiculous. Sauer and Olson and even Yockey, as well as many
>others, talk about the minimum sequence specificities of proteins. You
>just can't change too many residues at the same time without a complete
>loss of that protein's function. That's specificity. It can be
>measured. All functional proteins have a minimum specificity
>requirement that can be reasonable determined.
And thank you for yet more evidence that you do not know what
specificity is. Hershey and other have told you very many times now
what you do wrong, but as usual it goes over your head.
>> >The structural order of
>> >such a system and interdependent interaction of the parts of such a
>> >system cannot be reduced or changed beyond a certain very high minimum
>> >threshold without a complete loss of the flagellar motility function.
>> >It is this minimum threshold that I'm talking about. Without this
>> >minimum in place, flagellar motility will not happen at all - period.
>> >Not even a tiny little bit. This minimum can indeed be approximated.
>> >It is not an impossibility like it is for figuring out the maximum
>> >compressibility of a character string.
>>
>> What you describe now is irreducible complexity, which is totally
>> different from your functional complexity.
>
>Irreducible complexity is not totally different from functional
>complexity. IR all about the minimum size and specificity requirement
>for a particular functional system. That's exactly what I'm talking
>about. All functional systems have a minimum irreducible requirement
>in order for a particular function of that system to be realized. What
>the heck did you think I was talking about this entire time?
HEY! Now you gave yet another very different definition of Functional
Complexity. This time it is THE SYSTEM that is required to be minimal,
while the definition I quoted from you require that it is the minimum
size required to ACHIEVE a function.
So, you have given us at least 3 different definitions of functional
complexity:
1. A system which is easily destroyed.
2. A system which has a description which is as simple as possible.
3. A system which is as small as possible.
>> But you have done that confusion several times before, and people have
>> told you several times before that it is called "irreducible
>> complexity".
>
>Well obviously it is called irreducible complexity. "All functional
>systems are irreducibly complex" - as I've said many times before.
>There is even a title to a thread that I started by that name. It is
>just that different types of functional system have different minimum
>size and specificity requirements.
You sure have many different definitions of Functional Complexity.
>> I seriously thing there is something wrong with your
>> mind, since you are not able to remember stuff people tell you again
>> and again and again ad nauseam. It seems you have lost your ability to
>> learn.
>
>It is just that what you tell me again and again at nauseam is clearly
>wrong as I see it.
But you do NOT see it, so you are inhabil. You do not see what I mean.
>> >> >" . . . The simple gas mentioned earlier is highly chaotic, but it is
>> >> >not complex in the present sense [although it does have apparently high
>> >> >Kolmogorov Complexity].
>> >>
>> >> No, that gas was not chaotic at all.
>> >
>> >Did you notice that this is a direct quote from Baranger's paper? You
>> >are disagreeing with Baranger here, not me.
>>
>> There was no mentioning of turbulence in any of your quotes. All
>> pointed to there being ordinary stationary gas without
>> turbulence. Turbulence in gas is considered the classical example of
>> chaos in gas.
>
>The type of simple gas mentioned by Baranger here, if you actually took
>the time to read the paper, is actually an ordinary stationary
>non-turbulent gas in a chamber. The gas molecules still move around
>quite rapidly however. The movements of these molecules are indeed
>non-linear or chaotic (i.e., not predictable over very short periods of
>time).
Thank you.
Such a gas is not chaotic, while its molecules might be for short times.
>> Calling a stationary gas chaotic is not right.
>
>Sure it is. You just don't understand that Baranger is talking about
>the gas molecules - since you obviously haven't read the paper.
I know perferctly well what it is about, because I know this stuff,
being a real physicist and all, while you just are an arrogant
ignorant making up stuff and believing in it.
And what I writes show this to be true, but you do not process what I
read, and write a lot of lies about my state of mind.
>> The normal thing to
>> call the molecules of a stationary gas is "random". There is a certain
>> chaotic component to the interaction of the molecules of the gas, but
>> the molecules interacting chaotically does not mean that the gas is
>> chaotic.
>
>What? Molecules interacting chaotically doesn't mean that gas is
>chaotic? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Baranger is talking
>about this chaotic movement of the gas molecules and that is why he
>said, "The simple gas mentioned earlier is highly chaotic, but it is
>not complex in the present sense."
"The law of large numbers."
The gas is not dependent on the details of its constituent particles.
(Especially not when it just sits there, doing nothing.)
Or in other words: 2 gases with the same number of particles,
temperature and container, will behave the same macroscopically,
especially when they just lie there, doing nothing.
>< snip >
>
>
>> >> >We already saw that complexity and chaos have
>> >> >in common the property of nonlinearity. Since practically every
>> >> >nonlinear system is chaotic some of the time, this means that
>> >> >complexity implies the presence of chaos. But the reverse is not true.
>> >> >Chaos is a very big subject. There are many technical papers. Many
>> >> >theorems have been proved. But complexity is much, much bigger. It
>> >> >contains lots of ideas, which have nothing to do with chaos. . . [i.e.,
>> >> >Kolmogorov Complexity]
>> >>
>> >> I have already told you that chaos can be generated by short programs,
>> >> so you are wrong. Have you seen the formula for the mandelbrot set? It
>> >> is extremely short.
>> >
>> >That's the whole point.
>>
>> You wrote above:
>> "As with KC, you can never prove that a particular sequence or structure
>> is truly chaotic rather than the result of a very simple formula."
>>
>> Which contradics your claim that That's the whole point. If true
>> chaos is not the result of a very simple formula, then the point
>> cannot be that true chaos IS the result of a very simple formula.
>
>Chaos is not just the result of a simple formula with a knowable
>outcome. Chaos is more than that. Chaos must contain a component of the
>unknown. The same thing is true of randomness. This is why a string
>that appears random or "chaotic" might actually be the result of a very
>simple formula. In other words, there is no such thing as absolute
>randomness or even chaos. There is only the appearance of randomness
>or chaos because of the involvement of the unknown.
You are obviously not familiar with Quantum mechanics either. Not a
surprise. I will not even bother to try to explain what that means.
>> >Both apparent chaos and randomness can be
>> >generated by short programs, but the result is unknowable.
>>
>> And now you are again confusing chaos with randomness.
>
>There you go again, thinking that chaos and randomness aren't related.
One has low complexity, the other high. Very different.
>> >That's what
>> >makes chaos and randomness what they are - "unknowable" or
>> >"unpredictable".
>>
>> Chaos is deterministic. You have misunderstood, as usual.
>
>But that's just it. Chaos isn't completely deterministic in practice.
>That's why chaos theory was born, because many things just aren't
>linearly deterministic. To the degree that the unknown is involved and
>can affect outcome, to that degree is chaos and/or unpredictability
>increased over time.
Yes, but that is not the same as true randomness.
>< snip >
>
>> >Understanding and remembering are very different things Kim. I do
>> >indeed remember what you write.
>>
>> No, you do not. You just believe you do.
>
>Yes, I believe I do and you believe I don't. I mean, how could you
>believe otherwise. Obviously someone who actually remembered the
>brilliant things you say would have to agree with you. Therefore, those
>who don't agree with you must not be remembering what you say! ; )
Those who repeatedly claim I mean something which I repeatedly have
said and shown I do not mean, do not remember me. In other words: You.
>> >It just doesn't make any more sense now
>> >than it did before.
>>
>> You are simply terrible at thinking.
>
>Ditto ; )
Ha! I am certified Master of Science in Physics from the most
prestigious university in Norway. This would be impossible if I was
terrible at thinking. Furthermore, I have made new advances in
cryptography and have several patens. Again evidence of being good at
thinking. I understand English, Norwegian, German, and Russion. Even
more evidence of being good at thinking.
>> >You've directly disagreed with the author of this
>> >particular article on something that seems quite obvious.
>>
>> You have not understood the author either.
>
>You haven't even read the article yet, have you? Yet you know what
>Baranger is saying? I guess someone who invented the notion of
>Kolmogorov Complexity "independently" doesn't have to actually read
>such articles to know what they say? ; )
You have quoted Baranger. I can know what Baranger said because you
quoted Baranger, and because I see that he says the usual stuff I have
seen often before.
>> >It seems to
>> >me, then, that it is you who doesn't grasp the concepts presented in
>> >this article and therefore do not understand the fundamental
>> >differences between Kolmogorov Complexity and functional complexity.
>> >They are not the same Kim. They really aren't.
>>
>> Since you are not able to make sense of what I write, you are not able
>> to judge the sense of what I write, but you do so anyway. That is
>> dishonesty.
>
>Then, by this logic, you are not able to just the "sense" of what I
>write - yet you do so anyway? Is this dishonesty on your part?
But I am able to judge the sense of what you write, so the logic above
do not apply. Just look at how I was able to judge that you ment
"judge" when you wrote "just". That was even more evidence that I am
able to judge the sense of what you write.
Kim0
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- References:
- Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- From: Kim G. S. Øyhus
- Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- From: Seanpit
- Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- Prev by Date: Re: Re: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias
- Next by Date: Re: *** Post of the Month for December 2005: Vote Now! ***
- Previous by thread: Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- Next by thread: Re: Kolmorgorov Complexity and Kim Øyhus
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
