In this paper, I evaluate the claim that the equivalence of multiple intensionally distinct definitions of random sequence provides evidence for the claim that these definitions capture the intuitive conception of randomness, concluding that the former claim is false. I then develop an alternative account of the significance of randomness-theoretic equivalence results, arguing that they are instances of a phenomenon I refer to as schematic equivalence. On my account, this alternative approach has the virtue of providing the plurality of definitions of randomness with conceptual unity and a rationale for certain investigations that are carried out in the field.

中文翻译：

---

算法随机性定义的等价性^†

在本文中，我评估了这样的说法，即多个随机序列的不同内涵定义的等效性为这些定义反映了随机性的直观概念提供了证据，并得出结论，即前一个说法是错误的。然后，我对随机性理论等效结果的重要性进行了另一种解释，认为它们是一种现象的实例，我称之为示意性等效。据我所知，这种替代方法的优点是为随机性的多个定义提供了概念上的统一性，并为在该领域进行的某些研究提供了理由。