AbstractIntuitively, it seems that S 1 is “more random” or “less regular” than S 2. In other words, it seems more plausible (in some sense) that S 1 (as opposed to S 2) was generated by a random process ( e.g. , by tossing a fair coin eight times, and recording an H for a heads outcome and a T for a tails outcome). We will use the notation x σ 1 ą σ 2y to express the claim that xstring σ 1 is more random than string σ 2y. And, we take it to be intuitively clear that — on any plausible definition of such a relation — we should have S 1 ą S 2
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
Out of Error: Further Essays on Critical Rationalism.David W. Miller - 2006 - Ashgate Publishing.
Significance Testing in Theory and Practice.Daniel Greco - 2011 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (3):607-637.
Citations of this work
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Remarks on "Random Sequences".Branden Fitelson & Daniel Osherson - 2015 - Australasian Journal of Logic 12 (1).
Sleeping Beauty Awakened: New Odds at the Dawn of the New Day.Terry Horgan - 2004 - Analysis 64 (1):10–21.
Indeterminism in the Immune System: The Case of Somatic Hypermutation.Bartlomiej Swiatczak - 2011 - Paradigmi 1:49-65.
A Note on Monte Carlo Primality Tests and Algorithmic Information Theory.Jacob T. Schwartz - unknown
On the Probability of the Emergence of a Protein with a Particular Function.Paul Erbrich - 1985 - Acta Biotheoretica 34 (1):53-80.
Rationality and Allocating Scarce Medical Resources.Ralph P. Forsberg - 1995 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1):25-42.