Hacker News Reader

Comment by 082349872349872 | Hacker News Reader

taykh? (Q. what do you call a strawberry from Bretagne? A. Une freizh)

Right now I'm going down the rabbit hole of expander graphs (aha, these also have a spectral gap?), but soon I shall have some bandwidth for coarse-graining coffee automata.

(I doubt you have my public key, but I fear that were you to take the inference closure of our convos and some gumshoe work, you could easily have 33 bits worth of identity)

Lagniappe: https://blogs.ethz.ch/kowalski/zazie-au-pot-de-these/ (I hope Zazie's ultimate commentary has not given her uncle a complex)

View on HN

Taykh = river, as in Yez 47,12/nathaniel silber (shtetl = … )

Tonton = pork (osaka slang)

So, an algebraic exercise for me, a geometric one for you, and a quantum for both?

Geometric, or even philosophical?

Do I understand correctly that if we were to attempt to explain Kolmogorov Sophistication to Aristotle, we would say "the sophistication of `x` is the smallest essence over all proper[0] descriptions of x by, first[1] its essence, and then[2] its specific accidents"?

Intuitively, this would make sense, because as glass bead game players we are drawn to (beads whose cane was also formed from)* beads. As Körner would say, the height of distinction for a mathematician is to have, not an eponymous theorem, but an eponymous lemma.

[0] I don't understand what constitutes a proper description here yet, but am currently assuming it has to do with lying on a subsumption frontier, otherwise the trivial model would always be minimal.

[1] I think this has to be noncommutative, for otherwise we'd waste description bits on labelling the accidents? Compare canonical Huffman. (.a Lojban)

[2] see also Linnaeus

[0] not sure what you (or I, even) mean here, would the earlier bead of ultrafilters (& ultrametrics) be relevant in dispelling your discomfort?

[1] yes

[2] Linnaeus?

[2] Nomenclature binomiale

(compare the "biped, featherless — with broad nails")

Reply on news.ycombinator.com