Re: every number has its own significance.....

From: laura fairhead (run_signature_script_for_my_email_at_INVALID.com)
Date: 11/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:55:03 +0000 (UTC)

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 18:37:58 -0500, "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote:

>"laura fairhead" wrote ...
>> "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> wrote:
>>>"Andy" <andylee@home.com> wrote ...
>>>> every number has its own significance.....................
>>>Some of those didn't seem very "significant" to me.
>>>I bet there are some natural numbers that are totally uninteresting.
>>>I wonder what the smallest such number is?
>> What would you define as being interesting? I probably
>> misunderstand what your question is, nevertheless.
>
>Defining "interesting" or "significant" is indeed the issue.
>
>I was alluding to the fairly well known joke that the
>smallest uninteresting number would be quite interesting.

Hi,

Hmmm, I thought it was something like that :)

>
>As to the notion of measuring interest by the inverse of the
>minimal size of a descriptive formula, that's ground that
>Chaitin has addressed (check out his Web site).

His ? Or hers ?! I checked out Professor Chaitin-Chatelin's website
which has some extremely interesting papers but I couldn't find
anything like this; have I got the wrong Chaitin ?

>
>

regardsfrom
laura 

-- 
echo alru_aafriehdab@ittnreen.tocm |sed 's/\(.\)\(.\)/\2\1/g'
Loading