Talk:Computational irreducibility

AND NOT A SINGLE CITATION WAS TO BE FOUND

Looks interesting, but "idea" in this context means original research which is not strictly proven, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.42.7 (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

A fair observation, but - how does an Encyclopedia like Wikipedia handle a relatively novel idea like this one? Should Wikipedia discourage articles like this one because there aren't citations to back it up? It really is a ground-breaking concept that few others have pursued academically. To present a possible analogy from history - How would Galileo present his theory of a sun-centered universe? Steerpike5800 (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Is Computational Irreducibility really such a novel idea? Back in 1974, Gregory Chaitin mathematically showed that most n bit strings are incompressible: in other words, the shortest program that can describe an n bit string is usually at least n bits long (another way to look at this is that most strings are algorithmically random, in the Kolmogorov sense). There's no possible shortcut: to describe most data, you have to go through each and every bit. It seems to me that Chaitin deserves at least a bit of credit here. IMHO, there should at least be a link to Algorithmic information theory and/or Kolmogorov complexity. Perhaps also an additional section discussing the connection, if an expert can contribute it? Any thoughts? --Miniquark (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no counterbalance to this topic.

This article feels like it has been written by someone in love with Wolfram's pet projects. There is absolutely nothing about the criticisms of this unproven and arguably unproveable "principle". See for example the section[1] criticizing the "principle" on the article on A New Kind of Science.

The section heading "The idea" feels amateurish. 134.95.27.129 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)