**From:** Philip Goetz (*philgoetz@gmail.com*)

**Date:** Wed Mar 01 2006 - 08:35:31 MST

**Next message:**William Pearson: "Re: ESSAY: Program length, Omega and Infinite Running Programs"**Previous message:**Philip Goetz: "Re: ESSAY: Program length, Omega and Friendliness"**In reply to:**William Pearson: "Re: ESSAY: Program length, Omega and Friendliness"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

On 2/28/06, William Pearson <wil.pearson@gmail.com> wrote:

*> With experimentation, by definition the bits of omega or equivalent
*

*> number are random, so knowing one bit will have no bearing on the
*

*> others so I wouldn't expect any improvement.
*

The definition of omega says nothing about randomness, therefore the

bits are not random by definition. I suspect you are assuming that

the probability of one program halting is independent of the

probability of any other program halting. This seems unlikely to me.

**Next message:**William Pearson: "Re: ESSAY: Program length, Omega and Infinite Running Programs"**Previous message:**Philip Goetz: "Re: ESSAY: Program length, Omega and Friendliness"**In reply to:**William Pearson: "Re: ESSAY: Program length, Omega and Friendliness"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT
*