Mike Harrison wrote:
> Well sort of....
> If it does compress well it's definitely not very random
> If it does not compress well, it may or may not be random, depending
> on the compressor.
> If it does not compress well on any of several compressors, it's more
> likely to be random, however I think that sequences with long
> repeating patterns (e.g. a shift-register/xor algorithm with a
> nonmaximal sequence length) would probably not be caught by most
> compressors as this is not common in the 'real world' data they are
> designed for.
>

  Did anybody try to compress numerical series:
1,2,3,4,5,6,7, ...
or 1,2,4,8,16,32,...
or etc.
May be I'm wrong, but I doubt some compressor
could handle these apparently non-random series.
Incompressible and non random.

Mike.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.