Talk:Computational irreducibility
Add topic | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 August 2026. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by D.Lazard (talk · contribs) on 24 August 2026. It was contested by Ldm1954 (talk · contribs) with the comment: See response added to #Article should be deleted |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
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.
[edit]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 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)
- The section you refer to is on "computational equivalence" not "computational irreducibility" 2607:FEA8:463:CD00:0:0:0:C863 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Article should be deleted
[edit]I don’t think this meets notability requirements - it’s basically circular, the source of its notability is the source the idea comes from, and there is zero credible external references or analysis or criticism.
It reads to me like it exists here to prop up the credibility of the book it’s sourced from ~2026-43306-97 (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree, and I have PRODed the article D.Lazard (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
- @D.Lazard and @Bearian, I DeProd'd as I think this has to go to AfD.
- Checking his Google Scholar citations his book has > 11K cites, plus a Wikipedia page. As such we have to view it as notable. While you may not agree with his approach, may think of it as fringe science, we must stay NPOV, please remember WP:VNOTT. (I have no opinion on this work.) I do not see how his research and opinion falls under the concept of WP:OR when it is based upon RS.
- I estimate that the page has at least a 50% chance of surviving at AfD, and a reasonable claim towards notability as there are a reasonable number of Google hits. Thus a PROD does not appear to be appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC)