This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
I removed {{multiple issues}} presumably put there be Arthur Rubin. The article just gives the basic definitions of Kolm. Struct. Funct., adds the probability interpretation of A. Shen (Sh83 given) and gives some basic properties in VV04 that include properties of references Sh83, Vy87, and the main property proved in VV04. It is universally acknowledged that this is the main property. Not even Kolmogorov himself thought this would be the case (according to his last student L.A. Levin). In technical terms it states the distance of the Kolm Struct Funct to the diagonal (sufficiency line L in the Wikipedia article) is the randomness deficiency up to an additive logarithmic term. This means that the individual model wittnessing the Kolm Struct funct is almost the best-fitting model for the individual data in this setting. I referred to the MDL of sets as in VV04 and of probability models as VV04 and Rissanen (Ri07 given) does, and to ML since it is obvious. In my view the subject is mathematically techical but the entry is as simple as possible. It is not there to promote my interests. A previous writeup was mistakenly connected to Komogorov's work on turbulence. Since I happen to be coauthor in several papers about Kolm Struct Funct, I wrote the corect basics. So Arthur Rubin is mistaken and improperly damages the writeup if he puts the above warnings there. Paul Vitanyi
I don't understand it. It's either too technical, it's just wrong, or I'm stupid. I concede the COI issue is close, but it hasn't really been addressed. — Arthur Rubin(talk)17:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
