- Journal Home
- Volume 42 - 2024
- Volume 41 - 2023
- Volume 40 - 2022
- Volume 39 - 2021
- Volume 38 - 2020
- Volume 37 - 2019
- Volume 36 - 2018
- Volume 35 - 2017
- Volume 34 - 2016
- Volume 33 - 2015
- Volume 32 - 2014
- Volume 31 - 2013
- Volume 30 - 2012
- Volume 29 - 2011
- Volume 28 - 2010
- Volume 27 - 2009
- Volume 26 - 2008
- Volume 25 - 2007
- Volume 24 - 2006
- Volume 23 - 2005
- Volume 22 - 2004
- Volume 21 - 2003
- Volume 20 - 2002
- Volume 19 - 2001
- Volume 18 - 2000
- Volume 17 - 1999
- Volume 16 - 1998
- Volume 15 - 1997
- Volume 14 - 1996
- Volume 13 - 1995
- Volume 12 - 1994
- Volume 11 - 1993
- Volume 10 - 1992
- Volume 9 - 1991
- Volume 8 - 1990
- Volume 7 - 1989
- Volume 6 - 1988
- Volume 5 - 1987
- Volume 4 - 1986
- Volume 3 - 1985
- Volume 2 - 1984
- Volume 1 - 1983
Cited by
- BibTex
- RIS
- TXT
In this paper we study the Kolmogorov complexity of initial strings in infinite sequences (being inspired by [9]), and we relate it with the theory of P. Martin-Lof random sequences. Working with partial recursive functions instead of recursive functions we can localize on an apriori given recursive set the points where the complexity is small. The relation between Kolmogorov's complexity and P. Martin-Lof's universal tests enables us to show that the randomness theories for finite strings and infinite sequences are not compatible (e.g.because no universal test is sequential).
We lay stress upon the fact that we work within the general framework of a non-necessarily binary alphabet.
In this paper we study the Kolmogorov complexity of initial strings in infinite sequences (being inspired by [9]), and we relate it with the theory of P. Martin-Lof random sequences. Working with partial recursive functions instead of recursive functions we can localize on an apriori given recursive set the points where the complexity is small. The relation between Kolmogorov's complexity and P. Martin-Lof's universal tests enables us to show that the randomness theories for finite strings and infinite sequences are not compatible (e.g.because no universal test is sequential).
We lay stress upon the fact that we work within the general framework of a non-necessarily binary alphabet.