Random Data Compressed 100:1 (Guffaw)

[measl at mfn.org]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Ken Brown wrote:

> Michael Motyka wrote:
> 
> 
> > Here we go :
> > 
> > "As Eric correctly points out, true random input simply cannot be
> > compressed, it doesn't matter how clever you are or how much time and
> > computing power you have access to."
> > 
> > This is a statement of belief isn't it? Odd.
> 
> No, it's a logical consequence of his definition of "random" & no more a
> statement of belief than "1+1=2" is. If you use the word to mean
> something else then it might or might not be true in your universe.

So, it depends on what the definition of "is" is?  ;-)

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin at mfn.org

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------