Re: My claim on Omega's defn

examachine_at_gmail.com
Date: 02/02/05

  • Next message: Colin Percival: "Re: String Transformation Problem" 
    Date: 2 Feb 2005 11:45:13 -0800

    Daryl McCullough wrote:
    > r.e.s. says...
    > >
    > >"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote ...
    > >
    > >> Finally, define Omega to be the limit as n-->infinity of S(n).
    > >> This is the same as
    > >> Omega = sum over all valid bit strings p of 2^{-length(p)}
    >
    > You're right that interpreting Omega as a probability requires
    > the consideration of infinite bit strings. However, the definition
    > of Omega can be made in terms limits of finite bit strings.

    I was going to say exactly this to r.e.s. This would be exactly the
    same thing Cauchy did with calculus.

    >>From a computationalist point of view, that is why Omega has any
    relevance to our world, because it does not depend on a purely
    metaphysical (impossible!) idea like the continuum.

    So, the limit itself becomes uncomputable, e.g. _unreal_, however as
    always approximations are possible, which avoids the conceptual duality
    in Chaitin's monograph.

    Consider this like the correct conception of a black-hole. The
    event-horizon does _not_ exist, it is only approximated, you can only
    get this close to such physical limits. (Maybe this was a grossly
    inappropriate way of making the analogy. Please correct my silly
    errors) I'd heard that russian physicists were careful enough to make
    the distinction between a limit and something that actually exists.

    In fact, _everything_ in Chaitin's theory is independent from Cantor's
    naive set theory or axiomatic set theory, which is why I think it is
    relevant to foundational "thinking". In a sense, I think the language
    of AIT and Turing computation comes before, or encompasses more than
    set theory. Reading his work with this frame of mind is a lot of fun
    "can I write this whole thing in a constructivist language?".

    Now, I must make the additional claim that, within all computable
    reals, only Omegas would be random. I find that kind of significant.

    As a fun question, I must ask you, given the current estimates for the
    bounds and particle count of our universe, how long do you think is
    actual Omega of our universe? How many actually random bits are there
    here?

    Regards, 

    --
Eray Ozkural
  • Next message: Colin Percival: "Re: String Transformation Problem"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: My claim on Omegas defn
      ... > of Omega can be made in terms limits of finite bit strings. ... naive set theory or axiomatic set theory, which is why I think it is ...
      (sci.logic)
    • Re: My claim on Omegas defn
      ... > of Omega can be made in terms limits of finite bit strings. ... naive set theory or axiomatic set theory, which is why I think it is ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Cantor Confusion
      ... Cantor invented omega and defined omega as a whole number. ... Why do you think this meaning was changed? ... >>> Set theory was discovered and defined as being based on analysis. ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: 1-1/2+1/3-1/4+1/5-1/6+1/7
      ... However, the convergence is not absolute, so we can ... apparently most of you dont understand hilbert's ... omega) of the same ... but i wanted to avoid another discussion about set theory so i avoided the word cardinality. ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: Cantor Confusion
      ... Do you maintain omega> n for all n e N? ... If omega> n then we cannot have a diagonal with omega digits in a ... you a proof in set theory, from axioms using only first order logic. ... not yet know how to divide elements, ...
      (sci.math)