[r-t] Complexity of extents

[David Richards]

Matthew Frye wrote:
>> The choice of how to "write out" the extent clearly becomes key, perhaps
even moreso than the choice of compression.

Couldn't agree more.

It does raise the obvious question: How 'complex' are procedurally
generated blocks of ringing? (By 'procedural' in this case, I mean simple
rules like call 'Bob' when bell m is about to make 2nds, 'Single' when bell
n is about to make 2nds).

Procedurally generated touches will (presumably) score quite highly [more
complex] on an entropy-based measure of complexity if they're written out
in either grid or place-notation form. This goes back to Ander's point
about Kolmogorov Complexity.
If you're interested primarily in calling complexity, it seems almost like
you could do with a Sudoku-like method of removing redundant information in
the touch before presenting to your entropy estimator.


Cheers,
Dave.




On 14 June 2013 02:35, Matthew Frye <matthew at frye.org.uk> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2013, at 21:46, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> > Philip Earis asks,
> >
> >> Are there appropriate standard tests / algorithms
> > > that can be used in such a scenario, ie here to
> > > rank extents in terms of their intrinsic complexity?
> >
> > Find a way of writing out the extents in a standard way (perhaps the
> expanded place notation), and compress them using a tool like gzip.
> >
> > The size of the compressed extent is a metric of its complexity:
> simpler, more repetitive extents will be smaller.
>
> Yes. Clever. The choice of how to "write out" the extent clearly becomes
> key, perhaps even moreso than the choice of compression.
>
> I think it's important to keep the relationships you might notice while
> ringing in this description. e.g. for spliced St Simon's and St Martin's
> doubles, around the half-lead the back work is the same despite the
> difference in frontwork, but place notation mangles recognition of that.
> With any simple, linear description you can get issues like this but if you
> were to "write out" the method in some 2-D format (e.g. a grid) and then
> directly compress that by some means it may be more satisfactory.
>
> I doubt simply trying to apply a traditional image compression algorithm
> to a picture of a grid will get you very far though!
>
> Final thought: it might be interesting to compare scores between different
> descriptions, might shed light on the most efficient way of learning the
> particular method.
>
> MF
>
>
> On 13 Jun 2013, at 17:05, Philip Earis <Earisp at rsc.org> wrote:
> > *         What is best to measure for this? Minimal repetition of blocks
> of notation?  Or can this fall down somehow (eg with the spliced doubles
> examples, which has a lack of identical patterns but still much structure)?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.net/pipermail/ringing-theory_bellringers.net/attachments/20130614/5af4d719/attachment.html>