Am Freitag, den 07.03.2008, 01:19 +0000 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
> In message <·······························@news.gha.chartermi.net> Ron
> Garret said: "Random data in fact cannot be compressed."
>
> In message <·······························@news.gha.chartermi.net> Ron
> Garret said: "Of course random data can "occasionally" be compressed."
>
> In message <·······························@news.gha.chartermi.net> Ron
> Garret said: "There are no examples of compressible random data because
> random data is *defined* as data that is not compressible."
>
>
> It is difficult to reconcile these statements.
Easy enough - the meaning of "random data" has been used with different
definitions in this thread.
Sometimes, it meant "data generated by a random process". Sometimes, it
meant "a randomly selected example from all available bit sequences".
These two are easy to confuse because looking at a concrete example will
not tell whether you have one or the other.
> In fact, I don't see any
> rational way to do it. Perhaps we should turn, for our inspiration, to
> whoever it was who said in message
> <·······························@news.gha.chartermi.net>: "An irrational
> person is one who persists in a view in the face of overwhelming evidence
> to the contrary."
Before declaring a person irrational, it's usually wise to check that
oneself has properly understood what that person actually meant to say.
(Declaring people irrational who believe in creationism does have a
point - in the same way that declaring people irrational who adhere to
any belief system: technically correct but socially inappropriate.)
Regards,
Jo