cousin_it comments on K-complexity of everyday things - Less Wrong

11 Post author: cousin_it 04 December 2011 02:54PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (16)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 04 December 2011 11:59:54PM *  1 point [-]

What do you think about the conditional K-complexity of everyday things? For example, does knowing Finnegans Wake help a lot with compressing War and Peace?

Comment author: Manfred 05 December 2011 02:48:01AM 2 points [-]

If I got to call substrings of Finnegans Wake when writing a computer program that generated War and Peace, I can see how that would make it shorter. Every time they shared a phrase longer than the call to Finnegans Wake, I could just call Finnegan's wake, for example. But it wouldn't save very much, I'd think.

On the other hand, a program that spat out both books could be much shorter than two programs for one book each, by some amount related to how much repetition there was.

Comment author: Daniel_Burfoot 05 December 2011 02:41:44AM 1 point [-]

Yes, definitely. A simple example: one tool that will be useful to compress FW is just a dictionary (or index) of English words. Instead of encoding the letters of a word, you encode the index of the word in the list, and save bits by doing so. You have to pay an up-front cost to encode the dictionary itself, but it should still be worthwhile overall, even for a single novel. Now when you compress two novels together, you get the benefit of the dictionary for the second novel without having to repay the upfront cost.

Comment author: cousin_it 05 December 2011 02:52:49AM *  4 points [-]

Yes, of course. But I was thinking of a more substantial savings. The question is more like, does Finnegans Wake represent a sort of pointer to our branch of the multiverse, which you could use to compress War and Peace down to a couple kilobytes? How much "entanglement" is there?