Re: is free, open source software ethical?

Ron Garret said:

> In article <aJCdnaEZBNjRElLanZ2dnUVZ8s-qnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  Richard Heathfield <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>> > Random data in fact cannot be compressed.  That is actually part of
>> > the definition of random data.
>> 
>> This is equivalent to claiming that, if data can be compressed, it
>> cannot be random.
> 
> Randomness, like friendship, is an continuum, not a dichotomy.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that the randomness of data is 
measured by how much it can be compressed? Or what?

>> If you are right, we can sometimes predict with 100% accuracy
>> the next value in a random stream of data, such as - say - the toss of
a
>> fair coin.
> 
> Huh?  How do you figure that?

It's a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Let's start by assuming that random 
data *cannot* be compressed. That's your claim, right?

Now, either there is such a thing as a process for generating random bits,

or there isn't. If it is your further claim that there is no such process,

then you are effectively arguing that there is no such thing as 
randomness. That's an interesting point of view, and would be consistent 
with the claim that random data cannot be compressed, simply because 
there's no such thing as random data! I don't find such a view helpful, 
though, when considering the properties of random data.

The interesting discussion is not based, however, on "there ain't no such 
animal", but on "there *is* such a animal, but we can't compress it". So 
let's proceed on that basis.

So let's agree that we have a process for generating a genuinely random 
stream of bits, where for ease of discussion we'll call a 0-bit a "tail" 
and a 1-bit a "head".

Okay, here comes the reductio.

We examine the first N results, and then try to compress { N results + 1 
head }. Now, either we can or we can't. If we can't, well, we can't. But 
if we *can* do so, then by your argument the data cannot be random if the 
next result is a head, and yet we are using a genuinely random stream of 
bits, so the data must be random, and therefore the next result *must* be 
a tail - which means that we've predicted the next bit with guaranteed 
success, which means that the stream can't be random - and this 
contradicts our initial assumption.

Therefore, either the stream isn't random after all (and this argument 
applies to *any* method of generating random bits), or the assumption that

random data cannot be compressed is false.

>> Let's say for the sake of argument that we can compress 10 or
>> more identical results (10 heads or 10 tails).
> 
> If you want to take issue with the claim that random data cannot be
> compressed you seriously undermine your case if you begin by assuming
> for the sake of argument that it can.

It is not part of my argument that 10 (or whatever) heads is or is not 
random. My argument uses the fact that it is not only possible but trivial

to compress repeated data if there are enough repeats. Since you claim 
that random data cannot be compressed, you are arguing that random data 
cannot contain sufficiently many repeats to make compression possible. My 
point is that, if that is true, we can use the fact to make occasional 
predictions about random data with 100% success. That is, if we're allowed

to *choose* when to make the bet about what the next bit will be, we can 
guarantee that we will win that bet! And that's absurd. So one of our 
assumptions must be wrong - either there's no such thing as random data, 
or random data can occasionally be compressed.

> You might just as well begin by
> saying, "Let's assume for the sake of argument that one equals two."
> OK, we can assume that, but none of the conclusions that we draw from
> that assumption will be valid.

Well, no, I began with the absurd assumption that you're right, and 
concluded from it that you're wrong.

>> Thus, if you're right, if
>> we get 9 straight tails, the next toss *must* result in a head.
>> Conversely, if we get 9 straight heads, the next toss *must* result in
a
>> tail. Because otherwise, the data would be compressible, and random
>> processes are not *allowed* to produce compressible data.
>> 
>> And that is simply absurd.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> Now, I *know* what you mean.
> 
> Actually, I'm pretty sure you don't.  If you did you would know why
> random data cannot be compressed, even if it's a run of ten heads.  Try
> it.  Explain to me how you're going to compress that data.

Obviously the fewer the repeats, the harder it is, and the less likely
that 
it can be done. (10 is very low, and was merely a frinstance.) But there's

nothing magic about 10 in my argument.

I generated a run of 1600 heads (where 'set bit' = 'head'), and shoved
them 
through zip, which reduced it to 1216 bits (including all the file header 
information and stuff - the actual compression reported by zip was 97%; it

was the overhead that made the end result so large).

<snip>

>> > To say that the sun revolves around the earth is very
>> > badly wrong in fundamental ways.
>> 
>> Experimental evidence suggests very, very strongly that the Sun goes
>> round the Earth. I seem to remember that you're very hot on
experimental
>> evidence.
> 
> You have a deep misunderstanding of the nature of experimental evidence.
> It is true that (some) experimental evidence suggests that the sun
> revolves around the earth.

In fact, for the vast majority of people it is the only evidence they
have.

> But there is other evidence that is, at
> least as far as anyone can tell, *incompatible* with the theory that the
> sun revolves around the earth (e.g. the seasons, the earth's equatorial
> bulge, the retrograde motion of Mars, etc. etc. etc.)  So the fact that
> there is evidence that suggests that the sun revolves around the earth
> is *irrelevant*.  Such evidence does indeed exist.  Nonetheless, the sun
> does not revolve around the earth.

I'll alert the media. But in fact you have completely missed the point, 
which in this case is about frames of reference. To an observer on the 
earth (and that is where 99.eversomany9s% of all known observers have ever

been), it is the Earth that stands more or less still - relative to the 
observer! - and the Sun that moves. The other evidence you mention does 
not mean that the Sun does not go around the Earth - it merely means that 
looking at it in that way might not be the most helpful model. And they'd 
be right. In fact, I am very, very sure that they are right.

Do you believe in centrifugal force? I would guess not. And yet, if one 
chooses one's frame of reference carefully, it /does/ exist.

And now, we nearly return to the point of the thread (or at least we get a

lot closer to it than we have been thus far in this reply).

>> > It is likely
>> > that your good deed strengthened your friendship in ways that will
>> > provide you some direct benefit down the road.
>> 
>> ...but likely false. I had all but forgotten the incident until this
>> discussion came up about free software, and I'm sure my friend has
>> forgotten it too by now.
> 
> Maybe.  Or maybe some incident will occur that will trigger this memory
> in your friend just as this incident has with you.  Maybe some day
> you'll be in a bind and your friend will suddenly remember that back in
> the day you did her a favor and that will push her over the edge to do
> you one in return.

It's possible, but (a) it's unlikely, because neither she nor I think in 
terms of transactions where friendship is involved, and (b) it's 
irrelevant, since it didn't form part of my reasoning when I agreed to 
help her. I agreed to help her because she needed help, not because I 
expected to get anything out of it.

<snip>

>> In any case, the objection is simply wrong. Altruism is about intent. I
>> will gladly concede that some free software developers give away their
>> code in the hope of some gain. But there are certainly those who give
>> away their code because they want to benefit others. That *is* altruism
>> in action.
> 
> Can you cite an example?

I did already.

> Certainly RMS is not such a person.

Whether he is or whether he isn't, the existence of people who write 
software to give away for motives other than altruism does not imply the 
non-existence of people who write software to give away altruistically.

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www.
+rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999