Can a computer work anything out?
John Jones
Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
is this? I will tell you.
Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops.
WE imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine
them so!
John Stafford
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>
> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
> termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
> is this? I will tell you.
>
> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
But there are such programs that go on forever, or stop. Cellular Autonoma
is an example, and there are other.
> Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
> flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
> scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
> computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
But that is exactly what _you_ are asserting when you infer that to stop or
have a target is strictly a _human_ thing. By such reasoning we should
invent all new language for computers - WHICH WE DID. A stop and a target
(pattern, goal) is a computer term. IF/THEN/ELSE DO WHILE UNTIL and all the
rest are merely mnemonics that are translated into machine code. It would
make no sense to call an end/stop by machine code.
> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops.
> WE imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine
> them so!
Computers sometimes do have goals and targets, but that's hardware
implementation so we usually use firmware or software.
You will never change the world by asking the rest of us to be willfully
ignorant, intellectually impotent, stoned out of our minds.
John Jones
That's silly, and you know it.
John Stafford
On 7/15/09 1:44 PM, in article h3l8d2$uro$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
You are horribly informed.
Mr. B
No. In fact, this is a very famous problem in computer science, and the
solution is that there are some problems which a computer (at least using
the model of a Turing machine) cannot solve, the most well known being the
Halting Problem (the problem of determining if a given program will halt; it
cannot be solved in general).
> For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
Yes, a computer can, both have been demonstrated as proofs-of-concept. In
fact, Sudoku solving is a well known contest problem, especially in contests
of who can write the most efficient computer program.
> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
Yes, they do.
> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
> termination, no halting and no last operation.
Sure they do: the operation of being shut down. If you are using a PC with
ACPI support, there is a specific sequence of instructions that cause the
hardware to cease executing further instructions and to power off. Prior to
ACPI, we used a sequence of instructions that caused the hardware to stop
executing further instructions and enter the "wait" state, where it was safe
for a human operator to power off the system.
> For example, the end of a
> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern".
Yes, it is -- PC operating systems general have an "exit" system call which
programs use to indicate that they have terminated and that it is time for
the OS to deallocate whatever resources the program was using.
> Why
> is this? I will tell you.
>
> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
What are you talking about?
> Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
> flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
> scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
> computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
...have you ever looked at a computer science textbook? Or the Church-
Turing thesis? Or even the Wikipedia entries on computer science?
> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops.
> WE imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine
> them so!
In terms of physics, neither do humans: our actions are just undirected
chemical reactions. Let's get real here, and note that: computers are
machines that transition between states, and we generally configure them to
undergo a series of transitions that end in a state (or several states in a
particular pattern) that represents some computed value. We develop
programming languages to make it easier to express those transitions of
states, because it is too complex and expensive to try to define each state
one at a time (except in certain, highly restricted cases).
I recommend reading "Introduction to the Theory of Computation" if you want
a decent book on computing theory and computer science.
One final question: why did you post this in alt.atheism?
-- B
Lord Vetinari
news:h3l75k$mpp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
Yes, they can.
> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
I guess you never heard about that chess match, where Garry Kasparov lost
two out of three games to Deep Blue?
> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
> termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
> is this? I will tell you.
>
> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>
> Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
> flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
> scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
> computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
>
> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops. WE
> imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine them
> so!
Hi, shitforbrains! You shouldn't make it so painfully obvious that you know
nothing at all about computers.
Tapestry
> I guess you never heard about that chess match, where Garry Kasparov lost
> two out of three games to Deep Blue?
There is actually a little more to that story.
First off, the conditions of the match.
The computer selected several moves, and a group of people
decided which one to utilize.
Secondly, gary beat the computer in the first game and then
told them how to improve the computer.
Lord Vetinari
news:ddf89d8f-aac6-4811...@v20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
****************************************************
Heheheh....I never paid all that much attention to it. I can play chess
reasonably well (I was in the chess club in high school), but I don't enjoy
the game enough...it's just not my bag.
Mark Earnest
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h3l75k$mpp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
We anthropomorphize just about everything else, so why not computers?
I had my computer complain to me about something more than once.
Sure computers stop and start, but so does the mind.
And play your computer in chess.
You will see it think.
Maybe not as well as we can, so cool your jets.
That is, for now...
Jeff Strickland
"John Jones" <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:h3l75k$mpp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>
Unless it has a program in it that can solve the puzzles you throw at it,
no.
Without programming, a computer is nothing more than a paper weight.
chibiabos
<jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
These stops you describe are eerily similar to the spaces between your
words. But as objects in an object-free Universe, they don't really
exist.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
haiku jones
> "John Jones" <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
Except there is an entire field, called "genetic programming" or
"genetic algorithms" -- modeled after biological evolution --
in which there is no human involvement, other than to
say "this program (which nobody wrote) works better
than that program (which nobody wrote) to accomplish
task X"
You start with completely random batches of computer
commands, and -- for those that run at all; most
will not -- and see which might go a tiny step
towards your goal. You keep only the best
of the best. Then you "breed" them, exchanging
sections of code between the survivors, and
you may throw in some random "mutations" as
well.
Rinse. Repeat, approximately one zillion
times.
Some very sophisticated programs -- e.g: designing
turbine blades for jet engines -- have been
produced by this approach.
More examples of applications at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithms#Applications
Haiku Jones
LudovicoVan
> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>
> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
> termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
> is this? I will tell you.
>
> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
On the contrary, the fact there there are such parameters allowes the
whole thing to "work".
> Let's be tough about this. Let's be materialistically realistic and not
> flounder in the quaint anthropomorphic quasi-reality of the computer
> scientist. Let's not make computer homunculi by glossing technical
> computer language with the language of goal-seeking human activity.
>
> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops.
> WE imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine
> them so!
YEAH, but use an UNTIL there, OTHERWISE it's trash culture.
-LV
LudovicoVan
> On 15 July, 19:23, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> > stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> > can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>
> On the contrary, the fact there there are such parameters allowes the
> whole thing to "work".
In fact, I find interesting that in the formal description of a Turing
machine, the STOP is a (sort of?) meta-command. Maybe someone could
elaborate on this: the status of the STOP instruction w.r.t. the
specification of a Turing machine?
-LV
Immortalist
> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>
Do you mean computers as they are now or do you mean all computers at
all times in the future evolution of information processing devices?
If the later then humans have no goals or intentionality? Maybe you
should produce a genuine case of information processing with a goal,
as animals and humans do it, as a standard which you can judge against
current information processing devices.
Mark Earnest
"Jeff Strickland" <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:h3lme0$nsq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Without your mind, so is your brain.
Richo
> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>
> No.
Is there any end of subjects that you know absolutely nothing about?
Your ignorance is astoundingly broad and deep.
Mark.
Davej
>
> Can computers work anything out?
Here's an idea -- stop blathering nonsense when you are completely
ignorant of a topic.
Errol
>
> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
Not strictly true. Computers have buffers and pipes for instructions
and operands. Some computers preload the next instruction or even
predict it. When the buffers are flushed is more like a last stop or
termination. Some computers multithread several programs at the same
time for efficiency. This is analogous to watching tv and reading a
book at the same time.
John Stafford
> In article <h3l75k$mpp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, John Jones
> <jonesc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is make sets of stops.
>> WE imagine these as tasks and terminations, IF it is useful to imagine
>> them so!
>
> These stops you describe are eerily similar to the spaces between your
> words. But as objects in an object-free Universe, they don't really
> exist.
Perhaps the spaces between JJ's words have significance in that he
imagines closure, a fill-in-the-gaps-with-meaning thing - something like
the space between cartoon panels.
ZerkonXXXX
> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is >>make..<
Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning. By
your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.
The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act require
intent.
Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
the intention to 'make' (etc)?
If no intent but still purposeful act then they are only being used with
intent for a purpose. Like a hammer. Hammers, of course, 'make' noise and
'hit' nails but this is only a way of speaking about how a person is
using the hammer, not the hammer itself.
Marshall
>
> Perhaps the spaces between JJ's words have significance in that he
> imagines closure, a fill-in-the-gaps-with-meaning thing - something like
> the space between cartoon panels.
I dispute the claim that JJ employs words. A sequence
of letters isn't a word; a set of flowers isn't a bouquet.
These forms do not arise as a summation of the individual
properties of the set. I am certain he himself would agree.
Marshall
OP
Checkmate. Thank you on behalf of thinking persons everywhere.
John Jones
what?
Sargon
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:23:17 +0100, John Jones wrote:
> Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning. By
> your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.
How can a valid conclusion be reached by erroneous reasoning? A valid
conclusion, by definition, has been arrived at with correct reasoning,
that's the meaning of valid. The premises may be false, but the
reasoning is valid.
> The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act require
> intent.
Yes but this seems like a tautology. That is, any purposeful act is
intentional, and any intentional act is purposeful. I am not ready to
claim the words mean the same thing. Give an example of an intentional
act that is not a purposeful act, or a purposeful act which is not an
intentional act.
>
> Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
> the intention to 'make' (etc)?
>
> If no intent but still purposeful act then they are only being used with
> intent for a purpose. Like a hammer. Hammers, of course, 'make' noise and
> 'hit' nails but this is only a way of speaking about how a person is
> using the hammer, not the hammer itself.
I do not understand this example.Hammers have a purpose, but do not
"act" with purpose or intention. This is an interesting question. Are
the two words/concepts synonymous?
Ghod Dhammit
[snip]
> what?
Well, there ya go! You probably ought to have said, "D'oh!", though.
John Jones
Are you that twat from altatheisst
John Jones
Mine isn't.
John Jones
That's right. In themselves, there are no objects.
There is an idea that I haven't put out here. I knew that "stops" were
themselves anthropomorphisms. Sooner or later we must view everything in
terms of the whole task. But that doesn't mean that we assign the whole
task to everything.
John Jones
> On 15 July, 19:23, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Can computers work anything out? For example, can a computer solve a
>> Sudoku or a chess puzzle?
>>
>> No. Computers and their working programs don't work anything out.
>> Computers/programs have no target pattern, no goals, no work, no
>> termination, no halting and no last operation. For example, the end of a
>> computer game or program is not configured by a "stop" or "pattern". Why
>> is this? I will tell you.
>>
>> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
>> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
>> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>
> On the contrary, the fact there there are such parameters allowes the
> whole thing to "work".
These "parameters" are not parameters. They are anthropomorphic
metaphors for a mechanical process.
John Jones
Quite so. That was what I was arguing. If all steps are stops, and all
stops are "last", then how can there be a "last stop"
John Jones
This ignorance extends beyond the ken of knowledge.
John Jones
> On Jul 15, 8:23 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Each step in a program, whether it is a pattern or not, is a stop. All
>> stops are a last stop. So, there are no computer/program parameters that
>> can define a "last stop" as a "halt" or "termination".
>
> Not strictly true. Computers have buffers and pipes for instructions
> and operands. Some computers preload the next instruction or even
> predict it. When the buffers are flushed is more like a last stop or
> termination.
Is it? Why? Why is a big last stop different to a small last stop?
> Some computers multithread several programs at the same
> time for efficiency. This is analogous to watching tv and reading a
> book at the same time.
I dunno. Is that a fact.
>
Marshall
>
> Quite so. That was what I was arguing. If all steps are stops, and all
> stops are "last", then how can there be a "last stop"
"If all X have property Y then how can there be an X with property Y?"
That's awesome.
Marshall
John Jones
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:23:17 +0100, John Jones wrote:
>
>> Computers have no goals or targets. All they do is >>make..<
>
> Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning. By
> your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.
That's right. And yes I know. The subtlety of it is this: a "stop" is
like a "make", in that they are both anthropomorphisms. I presented, but
DID NOT pitch, my argument on an anthropomorphism, yet I was trying to
reject anthropomorphism. An anthropomorphically-based presentation of my
arguments served the presentation, and its good that it's been seen through.
>
> The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act require
> intent.
But we don't want to make a 'causal' link between purpose and intent.
The link is grammatical I suggest.
> Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
> the intention to 'make' (etc)?
Computer's don't "make" as we understood each other.
John Jones
> On Jul 16, 9:50 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:23:17 +0100, John Jones wrote:
>
>> Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning. By
>> your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.
>
> How can a valid conclusion be reached by erroneous reasoning? A valid
> conclusion, by definition, has been arrived at with correct reasoning,
> that's the meaning of valid. The premises may be false, but the
> reasoning is valid.
I'm not sure if you are right. I can't see how an objection against
reason can appeal to reason as arbiter.
John Jones
Are you getting this?
Zinnic
More to the point. How can there be more than one step? To start is to
stop? Gee! 'if' has a lot to answer for!
Marshall
I'm getting the same thing I always have with you: that you
have no tiniest understanding of either logic nor whatever
technical issue it tickles your fancy to propound upon at the
moment. And that you know that, and prefer it that way.
That tells me everything I need to know about your posts.
They are, like the disclaimers on the psychic readings
say, "for entertainment purposes only."
Marshall
ZerkonXXXX
> On Jul 16, 9:50 am, ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:23:17 +0100, John Jones wrote:
>
>> Error! Valid conclusion but erroneous (self-contradicting) reasoning.
>> By your own (and my) conclusion Computers do not 'make'.
>
> How can a valid conclusion be reached by erroneous reasoning? A valid
> conclusion, by definition, has been arrived at with correct reasoning,
> that's the meaning of valid. The premises may be false, but the
> reasoning is valid.
[GIVEN: It is raining outside]
Conclusion: It is raining outside. Reason: because someone in the world
has sinned and Baby Jesus is crying.
>
>> The answer might be reduced by this question: Does purposeful act
>> require intent.
>
> Give an example of an intentional
> act that is not a purposeful act, or a purposeful act which is not an
> intentional act.
The topic is the computer that 'makes' things or 'calculates' both serve
a purpose. My question addressed assigning the ability 'to make' without
an intention 'to make' being possible. So without intention the computer
can does not 'make' or 'calculate' even though it serves that purpose.
So your question does not fit this exactly or my question was not well
put but I'll have a go anyway because they are fun. However, I have to
revert to the premise of my question, Purposeful act being and act or
condition of outcome. Intention being the means to this outcome.
An intentional act is one in which purpose is a potential and so not yet
realized. If purpose is not realized though the intention of action, the
action is not purposeful.
A purposeful act is purpose realized, the nature of the intention then is
irrelevant.
>> Can a computer 'make' (see, hear, tell, listen, compute) while void of
>> the intention to 'make' (etc)?
>>
>> If no intent but still purposeful act then they are only being used
>> with intent for a purpose. Like a hammer. Hammers, of course, 'make'
>> noise and 'hit' nails but this is only a way of speaking about how a
>> person is using the hammer, not the hammer itself.
>
> I do not understand this example.Hammers have a purpose, but do not
> "act" with purpose or intention. This is an interesting question. Are
> the two words/concepts synonymous?
The attempt here is to force the purpose seen in outcome away from the
instrument used to achieve outcome. So hammers do not in themselves
'have' a purpose, they are made for a purpose which the human user 'has'.
The purpose of the hammer is in fact the purpose of the user. Even a
hammer which is designed for the specific purpose of hitting nails can
never be used this way but used to break rock, the hammer now 'having'
another purpose.
John Jones
Then follow it through. I didn't because I couldn't be asked.
John Jones
quite right.
Anthony Buckland
I'm a latecomer to this exchange, but please would someone
explain what "work anything out" regarding a computer means,
rigorously, that is.
dorayme
"Anthony Buckland" <anthonybuc...@telus.net> wrote:
What makes you think anyone here actually knows the answer to this?
--
dorayme
Robert Baer
truly random numbers.
dorayme
Robert Baer <rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
Truly random numbers, now that is an interesting concept. Depending on
what quite this means, perhaps something justly called a computer could
do this. Sure, it would not be on the basis of some one simple or even
one complex set algorithm in the average cpu but perhaps it could have a
component that emitted things that it could somehow take in as input,
something that a Geiger counter would start clicking at when held close
to...
--
dorayme
Anthony Buckland
"dorayme" <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-0EB...@news.albasani.net...>> ...
>> It cannot clean a kitchen sink or divide by three exactly or create
>> truly random numbers.
>
> Truly random numbers, now that is an interesting concept. Depending on
Here's an excerpt from Wolfram MathWorld's relevant article:
A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some
specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these
numbers reproduces the underlying distribution. Almost always,
such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there
are no correlations between successive numbers.
Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called
pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved
for the output of unpredictable physical processes. When used
without qualification, the word "random" usually means
"random with a uniform distribution."
There's plenty more to read there if you really want to get a
mathematician's understanding of the concept(s). When I
worked as a programmer-analyst, sequences of "random"
numbers were reproducible, i.e. if you started with a particular
seed number you'd always get the same sequence, which
was useful. If I wanted un unpredictable physical process
instead of a computer algorithm, to generate non-reproducible
random numbers, I'd use radioactive decay -- yup, a Geiger
counter would be fine, feeding the "clicks" into a trigger
circuit instead of a speaker.
dorayme
"Anthony Buckland" <anthonybuc...@telus.net> wrote:
> Here's an excerpt from Wolfram MathWorld's relevant article:
> A random number is a number chosen as if by chance
No fault of yours, Anthony, but in this atrocious bit of prose and
"explanation" you quote, the first thing that someone sensible would
avoid is throwing in the phrase "as if by chance" in explaining random
numbers at this stage!
> from some
> specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these
> numbers reproduces the underlying distribution.
And this *reproduction* is relevant to quite what?
> Almost always,
> such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there
> are no correlations between successive numbers.
No correlations eh? There are always *correlations*. This is the worst
bit of explanation of the idea of a random number that I have ever seen.
It is as if the writer has not a single clue that he is *not helping*
understanding something many of us already understand well enough.
He would have done better to simply have shut up. If you want a better
explanation, you should ask someone like me or Patricia Aldoraz who
might know something about the matter.
> Computer-generated random numbers are sometimes called
> pseudorandom numbers, while the term "random" is reserved
> for the output of unpredictable physical processes. When used
> without qualification, the word "random" usually means
> "random with a uniform distribution."
>
--
dorayme
Robert Baer
Davej
Good question. I am amazed that such a vague, meaningless, and idiotic
question can draw so many responses.
dorayme
Robert Baer <rober...@localnet.com> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <A7OdnX9nw534A_XX...@giganews.com>,
> > "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybuc...@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Here's an excerpt from Wolfram MathWorld's relevant article:
> >
> >> A random number is a number chosen as if by chance
> >
> > No fault of yours, Anthony, but in this atrocious bit of prose and
> > "explanation" you quote, the first thing that someone sensible would
> > avoid is throwing in the phrase "as if by chance" in explaining random
> > numbers at this stage!
> >
> >> from some
> >> specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these
> >> numbers reproduces the underlying distribution.
> >
> > And this *reproduction* is relevant to quite what?
> >
> >> Almost always,
> >> such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there
> >> are no correlations between successive numbers.
> >
> > No correlations eh? There are always *correlations*. This is the worst
> > bit of explanation of the idea of a random number that I have ever seen.
> > It is as if the writer has not a single clue that he is *not helping*
> > understanding something many of us already understand well enough.
> >
> > He would have done better to simply have shut up. If you want a better
> > explanation, you should ask someone like me or Patricia Aldoraz who
> > might know something about the matter.
> >
...
> >
> Then if you are so smart, 'splain it...
Gulp!
How about .... er ... how about ... a random number is a number that
pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
oup.
--
dorayme
John Stafford
> In article <A7OdnX9nw534A_XX...@giganews.com>,
> "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybuc...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's an excerpt from Wolfram MathWorld's relevant article:
>
>> A random number is a number chosen as if by chance
>
> No fault of yours, Anthony, but in this atrocious bit of prose and
> "explanation" you quote, the first thing that someone sensible would
> avoid is throwing in the phrase "as if by chance" in explaining random
> numbers at this stage!
Random, or pseudo-random numbers are supposed to represent an outcome as
close to a natural distribution of disorder as possible. That is 'by
chance'.
>> from some
>> specified distribution such that selection of a large set of these
>> numbers reproduces the underlying distribution.
>
> And this *reproduction* is relevant to quite what?
It is relevant to a natural disorder.
>
>> Almost always,
>> such numbers are also required to be independent, so that there
>> are no correlations between successive numbers.
>
> No correlations eh? There are always *correlations*. This is the worst
> bit of explanation of the idea of a random number that I have ever seen.
> It is as if the writer has not a single clue that he is *not helping*
> understanding something many of us already understand well enough.
I believe Wolfram was suggesting that n, n+1, and so-forth should not
have calculalble predictability.
>
> He would have done better to simply have shut up. If you want a better
> explanation, you should ask someone like me or Patricia Aldoraz who
> might know something about the matter.
Oh good. Say, Genius, if you think you know more about mathematics than
Stephen Wolfram, then carry on.
Dig your way out of this one!
John Stafford
It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
part of the sequence.
I'll bet you finally learned who Stephen Wolfram is.
Patricia Aldoraz
> > Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >> Then if you are so smart, 'splain it...
>
> > Gulp!
>
> > How about .... er ... how about ... a random number is a number that
> > pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
>
> It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
> sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
> part of the sequence.
>
> I'll bet you finally learned who Stephen Wolfram is.
I'll bet you have not a single clue of the real issues here. Go ahead
and bow down to some great authority. Did you usenet guys take some
pills somewhere along the line that makes you so lacking in
independent thought? These names and these authority figures always on
your lips!
If you are going to challenge what dorayme says, challenge it with a
reasoned objection! Don't mumble a few words in awe of someone or
other. Or throw some half articulate words at it and think you have
actually done something.
Let me see if I can manage to put some definition on your fuzzy
thoughts.
1. It is not adequate to be simply ignorant.
means something like
2. The idea that a random number is a number that pops up before us
without us having a clue as to how it was generated does not capture
an important ingredient of the concept of a random number.
Yes? OK. Fine! What is this important ingredient? It is something
about not being able to predict something, yes?
You seem to miss that dorayme actually tells you what it is. Read it
again. It is that the randomness consists in the observer having no
clue about the generating engine's modus operandi. The observer has no
clue what formula, if any, is being used by the generator. It is that
no matter how many numbers are thrown up by this generator or number
producing source, no clue is gained by any justified reasoning from
the mere appearance of the numbers produced.
The randomness is exhausted by the ignorance in a deep sense so you
are dead wrong and confused and dorayme is quite correct and I agree
with him.
It is important that the numbers do not disclose *a real pattern* that
can be *reasonably* used to anticipate another part of the sequence.
But that is is a given consequence of dorayme's stipulation that the
observer has not a clue about the generator.
Now, if you are thinking that the numbers themselves could give a
clue, you are badly mistaken. It is a simple truth of mathematics that
any given sequence of numbers can belong to any one of an infinite
number of formulae that could have generated them.
If an observer has *not a single clue as to the complexity of the
generator*, not *a single clue*, as dorayme says, then no sequence of
numbers will help at all.
Some of this was explained to Walter in the thread Robot
Consciousness. Go and read the thing.
Think before speaking, please.
John Stafford
c695efa8-e14d-4c6d...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, "Patricia
Aldoraz" <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:56�pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <3LSdnRMXc_JmH_TXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@posted.localnet>,
>>> �Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> � �Then if you are so smart, 'splain it...
>>
>>> Gulp!
>>
>>> How about .... er ... how about ... a random number is a number that
>>> pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
>>
>> It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
>> sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
>> part of the sequence.
>>
>> I'll bet you finally learned who Stephen Wolfram is.
>
> I'll bet you have not a single clue of the real issues here. Go ahead
> and bow down to some great authority. Did you usenet guys take some
> pills somewhere along the line that makes you so lacking in
> independent thought? These names and these authority figures always on
> your lips!
Profiling, are you? Look, I was not making an appeal to authority. I was
merely showing you that ignorance does not explain random.
> If you are going to challenge what dorayme says, challenge it with a
> reasoned objection! Don't mumble a few words in awe of someone or
> other. Or throw some half articulate words at it and think you have
> actually done something.
Oh, I did explain what random means. Perhaps you chose to ignore that part.
> Let me see if I can manage to put some definition on your fuzzy
> thoughts.
>
> 1. It is not adequate to be simply ignorant.
>
> means something like
>
> 2. The idea that a random number is a number that pops up before us
> without us having a clue as to how it was generated does not capture
> an important ingredient of the concept of a random number.
>
> Yes? OK. Fine! What is this important ingredient? It is something
> about not being able to predict something, yes?
The important ingredient is the randomness of the given sequence.
If you were given, for example, a string of integers that "looked random"
you cannot assume they are random. Being ignorant of how the numbers were
generated has nothing to do with being random (or pseudo-random).
> You seem to miss that dorayme actually tells you what it is. Read it
> again. It is that the randomness consists in the observer having no
> clue about the generating engine's modus operandi. The observer has no
> clue what formula, if any, is being used by the generator. It is that
> no matter how many numbers are thrown up by this generator or number
> producing source, no clue is gained by any justified reasoning from
> the mere appearance of the numbers produced.
Dorayme can speak for himself. Your last sentence makes no sense at all.
> The randomness is exhausted by the ignorance in a deep sense so you
> are dead wrong and confused and dorayme is quite correct and I agree
> with him.
What is this exhaustion and what is this deep sense?
> It is important that the numbers do not disclose *a real pattern* that
> can be *reasonably* used to anticipate another part of the sequence.
> But that is is a given consequence of dorayme's stipulation that the
> observer has not a clue about the generator.
That makes no sense at all. Do you understand anything about likelihood?
> Now, if you are thinking that the numbers themselves could give a
> clue, you are badly mistaken. It is a simple truth of mathematics that
> any given sequence of numbers can belong to any one of an infinite
> number of formulae that could have generated them.
Show me just fifty of this infinity. Besides, formulae are deterministic, so
the outcome is unlikely to be random.
> If an observer has *not a single clue as to the complexity of the
> generator*, not *a single clue*, as dorayme says, then no sequence of
> numbers will help at all.
>
> Some of this was explained to Walter in the thread Robot
> Consciousness. Go and read the thing.
>
> Think before speaking, please.
I think for a living. I do very well. I'd advise you to quit the
impressionism and speak from knowledge.
>
>
>
Matt Silberstein
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
<doraymeRidThis-498...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
A random number is one such that knowing the previous numbers in the
sequence to not provide us a better prediction of the next number in
the sequence.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
dorayme
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Not really, because here might just be *one* number caused to appear.
Previous and future might not come into it in fact. The idea of "not
having a clue how it was in detail generated" captures our intuitive
notion better.
--
dorayme
Matt Silberstein
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
<doraymeRidThis-687...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
I disagree because I don't care how it actually is determined, I care
if I can know. But now we are into a very different set of issues.
Suppose I have a nice useful predictive model that works, but is not
how the numbers are actually generated. Is the number random? I would
say not.
dorayme
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:16:36 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
> <doraymeRidThis-687...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <ak4k65lnjl2m2b1f5...@4ax.com>,
> > Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:20:41 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
> >> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
> >> <doraymeRidThis-498...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
> >>
> >...
> >> >
> >> > a random number is a number that
> >> >pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
> >>
> >> A random number is one such that knowing the previous numbers in the
> >> sequence to not provide us a better prediction of the next number in
> >> the sequence.
> >
> >Not really, because here might just be *one* number caused to appear.
> >Previous and future might not come into it in fact. The idea of "not
> >having a clue how it was in detail generated" captures our intuitive
> >notion better.
>
> I disagree because I don't care how it actually is determined, I care
> if I can know.
You care about knowing *what* exactly?
> But now we are into a very different set of issues.
> Suppose I have a nice useful predictive model that works, but is not
> how the numbers are actually generated. Is the number random? I would
> say not.
You having a nice predictive model sounds to me like you do have a clue
how the numbers are generated. I hope you don't think I mean something
crude by generating to mean simply knowledge of the actual metal or
silicon structure of the generator. I am talking about not having a clue
about the algorithm or rule or formula or operational method of the
generator or any idea at all about its complexity.
A severed water pipe might seem on close examination to emit a definable
pattern of drips and flows from its open end. Presumably it is "not
really random" if the pattern is caused by some set of valves in a tank
some way off that are programmed to open and shut at set times etc?
And, more interestingly, it is "really random", if the non-water
emitting end of the pipe about thirty metres away is found to be simply
open and unconnected to any supply of water, the pipe unbroken along the
way, unable to hold much water itself, yet going on for months gushing
water and stopping gushing, dripping and not dripping. By magic? And you
are imagining in this possible world, that someone might have a
predictive model?
This to me sounds like a fantasy case that commits The Gambler's
Fallacy. You have no predictive model, it is just a flukey case that has
no rhyme or reason. You ought not to bet on it if you really, really
knew that the pipe was a magic pipe.
--
dorayme
Patricia Aldoraz
>
>
>
> Aldoraz" <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 9:56 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>> In article <3LSdnRMXc_JmH_TXnZ2dnUVZ_v6dn...@posted.localnet>,
> >>> Robert Baer <robertb...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>> Then if you are so smart, 'splain it...
>
> >>> Gulp!
>
> >>> pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
>
> >> It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
> >> sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
> >> part of the sequence.
>
> ... Look, I was not making an appeal to authority. I was
> merely showing you that ignorance does not explain random.
>
> ...I did explain what random means. Perhaps you chose to ignore that part.
My earlier reply to all this seems to have gone missing?
dorayme
<ed20e9df-04bb-46d9...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 12:34 am, John Stafford <jstaff...@winona.edu> wrote:
> > On 7/24/09 8:42 AM, in article
> > c695efa8-e14d-4c6d-a2d7-c32fac738...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, "Patricia
> >
> > Aldoraz" <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 9:56 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> > >> dorayme wrote:
> > >>... a random number is a number that
> > >>> pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
> >
> > >> It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
> > >> sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
> > >> part of the sequence.
> >
...
There are many contexts in which the word "random" occurs. What very
detailed and particular context shall we discuss?
Imagine you are sitting in front of a computer screen. You are told a
number will appear on it if you press Enter but are given no information
as to how it will be generated. Just one number. 5 appears. Is 5 a
random number in this situation?
There is some pressure to say, yes and some pressure to say 'don't
know'. The pressure to say yes is that if your aunt came in with the tea
and asked wtf you were doing staring at a blank screen, you might
reasonably say you were about to see a number on pressing Enter, you had
no idea which number. And if you or your aunt added that it would be a
random number, neither of you might blink or feel this is out of place.
You would have been a fool to bet on 5 or any other number. Against your
background information, there is no number that is privileged or has a
better chance of appearing than any other number. As far as you are
concerned in this situation, the number will be quite random. Any guess
is as good as any other guess.
The pressure to say don't know is that the generator might have a simple
algorithm, albeit unknown to you, that always produces 5. If this were
found to be the case later, we might say that the number was in fact not
random, it was just that your information was lacking. You were
perfectly right that no number had a higher probability of coming on
than any other number.
Probability is usually happily accepted as being in relation to
background knowledge. There is no big puzzle here. But there is a notion
that some people have that *random* is something rather more objective.
If only we could look at the generating machine and see how it works, we
might find that it is not *really* random.
Now this is an interesting sense of random. What would be truly random
in this sense? Usually we would think that if something is "quite
incalculable" this is sufficient basis for randomness. The coin toss is
often thought to be an excellent paradigm of random. But this paradigm
is under severe attack under this idea that there is an objective
randomness. If we knew more about the initial conditions of the toss,
and if we were cleverer and if we had more powerful computers, perhaps
we would be able to change the probability from 1/2 in our favour...
What is being said in this severe objective sense is that no matter what
we found in nature, some result could not have been calculated or
reasoned to. There is no way at all to alter the probability in our
favour. No matter what we find out about the world, if something is
*really random* we will make no progress!
A magic screen that numbers appeared on, uncaused, would be an excellent
context for numbers that appeared to be judged random! In some parts of
physics, it is said that some things are quite unpredictable, as if it
is in the nature of things to be random between a number of states.
Well, I have no deep objection to calling something "really random" if
there is never in fact any basis to calculate between one state and
another no matter how much an observer studies the matter.
At the heart of this judgement of randomness is still the basic idea
that we have no clue to reason to one state rather than another. It is
just that in *real randomness*, the context includes the idea that the
situation of having no clue is endless and bottomless.
Under this severe way of looking at things, perhaps nearly everything we
casually say is random is merely pseudo-random.
> >
> > If you were given, for example, a string of integers that "looked random"
> > you cannot assume they are random. Being ignorant of how the numbers were
> > generated has nothing to do with being random (or pseudo-random).
> >
...
> >
> > > Now, if you are thinking that the numbers themselves could give a
> > > clue, you are badly mistaken. It is a simple truth of mathematics that
> > > any given sequence of numbers can belong to any one of an infinite
> > > number of formulae that could have generated them.
> >
> > Show me just fifty of this infinity. Besides, formulae are deterministic, so
> > the outcome is unlikely to be random.
> >
Patricia is perfectly right. Take any set of numbers, no matter what
they are, they could continue in any of an infinite number of ways and
there would be a rule to cover each way.
Thus 1 2 3 could continue 4 5 6 or 3 2 1 or 2 4 6 etc
And each way of continuing could be described by a mathematical formula:
1 2 3 4 5 6 would be covered by N(n)=n where N is the number at the nth
place in the series. Under this rule, 7 would be the next number.
If this Stafford fellow wants to put up some money, let me know,
Patricia, I will supply another 49 formulae. Get his money into escrow
first though! <g>
--
dorayme
John Stafford
> In article
> <ed20e9df-04bb-46d9...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 25, 12:34 am, John Stafford <jstaff...@winona.edu> wrote:
>>> On 7/24/09 8:42 AM, in article
>>> c695efa8-e14d-4c6d-a2d7-c32fac738...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, "Patricia
>>>
>
>>> Aldoraz" <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>> ... a random number is a number that
>>>>>> pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
>>>>> It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
>>>>> sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
>>>>> part of the sequence.
> ...
>
> There are many contexts in which the word "random" occurs. What very
> detailed and particular context shall we discuss?
You can try to fuzz the definition all you like, but Random has a
specific meaning: | lacking any definite plan or order or purpose;
governed by or depending on chance
> Imagine you are sitting in front of a computer screen. You are told a
> number will appear on it if you press Enter but are given no information
> as to how it will be generated. Just one number. 5 appears. Is 5 a
> random number in this situation?
A single random number is not a significant test, as you demonstrate
below (snipped for brevity).
> Now this is an interesting sense of random. What would be truly random
> in this sense? Usually we would think that if something is "quite
> incalculable" this is sufficient basis for randomness.
By incalculable I take it you mean indeterminate, for example the
emission of radioactive noise.
> The coin toss is
> often thought to be an excellent paradigm of random. But this paradigm
> is under severe attack under this idea that there is an objective
> randomness. If we knew more about the initial conditions of the toss,
> and if we were cleverer and if we had more powerful computers, perhaps
> we would be able to change the probability from 1/2 in our favour...
Nonsense. False argument. In order to make your chances better, you
would have to change the way the initial conditions are predetermined,
and how the coin is tossed - IOW, mechanize the whole flipping thing in
order to match your outcome. If you measure the coin as it is being
flipped, you no longer have the opportunity for true random because you
are changing the rule as you make the flip.
> What is being said in this severe objective sense is that no matter what
> we found in nature, some result could not have been calculated or
> reasoned to.
Yes, that is a fully deterministic view of nature.
> There is no way at all to alter the probability in our
> favour. No matter what we find out about the world, if something is
> *really random* we will make no progress!
No progress in what way?
> A magic screen that numbers appeared on, uncaused, would be an excellent
> context for numbers that appeared to be judged random!
I would judge it random, or not, only after applying standard
statistics to the sequence of numbers.
> In some parts of
> physics, it is said that some things are quite unpredictable, as if it
> is in the nature of things to be random between a number of states.
Yes, and I never wrote anything that objects to that posit.
> Well, I have no deep objection to calling something "really random" if
> there is never in fact any basis to calculate between one state and
> another no matter how much an observer studies the matter.
Backtracking, I see. You are correcting yourself as you write.
> At the heart of this judgement of randomness is still the basic idea
> that we have no clue to reason to one state rather than another. It is
> just that in *real randomness*, the context includes the idea that the
> situation of having no clue is endless and bottomless.
Indeterminate is the word of choice.
> Under this severe way of looking at things, perhaps nearly everything we
> casually say is random is merely pseudo-random.
Yes. The entire universe could be evolving from a simple, deterministic
pattern but has evolved in a way that makes temporal judgments of random
virtually impossible except by carrying out the process and looking at
it, IOW, simulating it.
> Patricia is perfectly right. Take any set of numbers, no matter what
> they are, they could continue in any of an infinite number of ways and
> there would be a rule to cover each way.
>
> Thus 1 2 3 could continue 4 5 6 or 3 2 1 or 2 4 6 etc
That is an invalid argument for randomness. You are creating an
imaginary outcome and then presuming there can be an algorithm contrived
to meet part of the outcome; regardless, it would still not demonstrate
what algorithm, or process (not an algorithm) would create the full
string of random numbers.
>
> If this Stafford fellow wants to put up some money, let me know,
> Patricia, I will supply another 49 formulae. Get his money into escrow
> first though! <g>
How much?
Please provide the solution that generates this set of random strings.
59drebkqm4
dkr30zmwbt
agngrq9n8q
zze9uuinc1
l35a1d8km9
qoqyyxyrzi
p0kjwdpkqf
cddufhbref
dwyodjm1oq
dan7q9lgip
Or if you prefer, this set of random integers
48
85
61
59
98
21
14
12
52
97
94
9
56
77
24
44
58
28
13
50
11
87
75
33
39
30
4
47
60
90
45
100
83
31
16
7
17
70
40
74
22
88
3
72
92
99
73
43
10
49
19
6
57
95
64
81
62
93
34
66
27
79
55
80
29
76
1
89
41
63
68
86
35
26
20
65
37
2
82
36
84
53
8
38
25
54
78
91
15
67
96
71
46
32
42
18
51
23
69
5
Put your money where your mouth is.
John Stafford
That's a refinement for purposes of quotidian or personal
impressionistic experience, but below from Wolfram covers the case.
Patricia Aldoraz
> > <ed20e9df-04bb-46d9-8b2d-ebafbeb2a...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 25, 12:34 am, John Stafford <jstaff...@winona.edu> wrote:
> >>> On 7/24/09 8:42 AM, in article
> >>> c695efa8-e14d-4c6d-a2d7-c32fac738...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, "Patricia
>
> >>> Aldoraz" <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> >>>>> dorayme wrote:
> >>>>> ... a random number is a number that
> >>>>>> pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
> >>>>> It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
> >>>>> sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
> >>>>> part of the sequence.
> > ...
>
> > There are many contexts in which the word "random" occurs. What very
> > detailed and particular context shall we discuss?
>
> You can try to fuzz the definition all you like, but Random has a
> specific meaning:
Like hell it has. Trying to make out like Simple Simon?
> | lacking any definite plan or order or purpose;
> governed by or depending on chance
>
Philosophy by dictionary anyone?
Depending on chance indeed! Poker depends on chance but it is not
random.
> > Imagine you are sitting in front of a computer screen. You are told a
> > number will appear on it if you press Enter but are given no information
> > as to how it will be generated. Just one number. 5 appears. Is 5 a
> > random number in this situation?
>
> A single random number is not a significant test, as you demonstrate
> below (snipped for brevity).
>
Is not a significant test of what? Trouble with expressing things when
they are not in a dictionary or in the words of some famous writer?
> > Now this is an interesting sense of random. What would be truly random
> > in this sense? Usually we would think that if something is "quite
> > incalculable" this is sufficient basis for randomness.
>
> > The coin toss is
> > often thought to be an excellent paradigm of random. But this paradigm
> > is under severe attack under this idea that there is an objective
> > randomness. If we knew more about the initial conditions of the toss,
> > and if we were cleverer and if we had more powerful computers, perhaps
> > we would be able to change the probability from 1/2 in our favour...
>
> Nonsense. False argument.
What exactly is nonsense? The idea that many people have had that if
one knew all the relevant laws, all the initial conditions and all the
forces one might be able to better predict the result? Notice the*
if*?
And what do you think is *the argument*? Perhaps a mere *point* is
being made.
> > What is being said in this severe objective sense is that no matter what
> > we found in nature, some result could not have been calculated or
> > reasoned to.
>
> Yes, that is a fully deterministic view of nature.
>
No, it is discussing quite an opposite context, one in which some
things *cannot* be determined because of the very *not fully
deterministic* nature of some things.
> > There is no way at all to alter the probability in our
> > favour. No matter what we find out about the world, if something is
> > *really random* we will make no progress!
>
> No progress in what way?
>
No progress in being able to predict which state out of a number that
are truly equally probable against no matter what information we
collect before the event
> > A magic screen that numbers appeared on, uncaused, would be an excellent
> > context for numbers that appeared to be judged random!
>
> I would judge it random, or not, only after applying standard
> statistics to the sequence of numbers.
>
You would fail hopelessly for the same reason that the gambler of The
Gambler's Fallacy fails. If it was a magic screen, you would be a
complete dope to apply statistical patterns. They would lead you
astray because they would have no grip in this situation. In our
actual wold, you see, we have some idea of the complexity of things.
If we did not, we would not be able to conduct science.
> > In some parts of
> > physics, it is said that some things are quite unpredictable, as if it
> > is in the nature of things to be random between a number of states.
>
> Yes, and I never wrote anything that objects to that posit.
>
So?
> > Well, I have no deep objection to calling something "really random" if
> > there is never in fact any basis to calculate between one state and
> > another no matter how much an observer studies the matter.
>
> Backtracking, I see. You are correcting yourself as you write.
>
What I see is a dope of a usenet guy into pissing competitions. Learns
nothing, quotes, looks up dictionaries, misunderstands pretty well
everything. And someone who is beyond improvement, self correction or
any correction, a complete inability to grow or change or deepen.
Proud of those characteristics, eh? What a silly man you are.
> > At the heart of this judgement of randomness is still the basic idea
> > that we have no clue to reason to one state rather than another. It is
> > just that in *real randomness*, the context includes the idea that the
> > situation of having no clue is endless and bottomless.
>
> > Patricia is perfectly right. Take any set of numbers, no matter what
> > they are, they could continue in any of an infinite number of ways and
> > there would be a rule to cover each way.
>
> > Thus 1 2 3 could continue 4 5 6 or 3 2 1 or 2 4 6 etc
>
> That is an invalid argument for randomness.
Why on earth you think it is *an argument for randomness* I have no
idea?
> > If this Stafford fellow wants to put up some money, let me know,
> > Patricia, I will supply another 49 formulae. Get his money into escrow
> > first though! <g>
> How much?
You name the figure and you abide by the sequences mentioned by
dorayme, not things you get to make up that have nothing to do with
the matter.
John Stafford
> On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <ed20e9df-04bb-46d9-8b2d-ebafbeb2a...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 25, 12:34 am, John Stafford <jstaff...@winona.edu> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/24/09 8:42 AM, in article
>>>>> c695efa8-e14d-4c6d-a2d7-c32fac738...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, "Patricia
>>>>> Aldoraz" <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 24, 9:56 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>>>>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>>>> ... a random number is a number that
>>>>>>>> pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
>>>>>>> It is not adequate to be simply ignorant. It is important that the
>>>>>>> sequence not disclose a pattern that can be used to anticipate another
>>>>>>> part of the sequence.
>>> ...
>>> There are many contexts in which the word "random" occurs. What very
>>> detailed and particular context shall we discuss?
>> You can try to fuzz the definition all you like, but Random has a
>> specific meaning:
>
> Like hell it has. Trying to make out like Simple Simon?
I'm surprised that you believe that. You reference physics when it suits
you, then deny it? Random is simple. It is well defined. Whether or not
the universe is random is another question, and you cannot answer it by
changing the definition: that would obviate a counter argument.
>
>> | lacking any definite plan or order or purpose;
>> governed by or depending on chance
>>
>
> Philosophy by dictionary anyone?
It is simple. By denying the obvious, simple definition you won't change
the argument.
> Depending on chance indeed! Poker depends on chance but it is not
> random.
Playing the odds admits random. Playing poker well does require some
talent for reading people, knowing odds, and making smart choices, but
the draw of cards is random (specifically random without replacement).
How do you claim that drawing cards is not random?
>>> Imagine you are sitting in front of a computer screen. You are told a
>>> number will appear on it if you press Enter but are given no information
>>> as to how it will be generated. Just one number. 5 appears. Is 5 a
>>> random number in this situation?
>> A single random number is not a significant test, as you demonstrate
>> below (snipped for brevity).
>>
> Is not a significant test of what? Trouble with expressing things when
> they are not in a dictionary or in the words of some famous writer?
Do you understand what significance means? Statistical significance? A
sample of one cannot be used to determine signficance.
>>> Now this is an interesting sense of random. What would be truly random
>>> in this sense? Usually we would think that if something is "quite
>>> incalculable" this is sufficient basis for randomness.
>
>>> The coin toss is
>>> often thought to be an excellent paradigm of random. But this paradigm
>>> is under severe attack under this idea that there is an objective
>>> randomness. If we knew more about the initial conditions of the toss,
>>> and if we were cleverer and if we had more powerful computers, perhaps
>>> we would be able to change the probability from 1/2 in our favour...
>> Nonsense. False argument.
>
> What exactly is nonsense? The idea that many people have had that if
> one knew all the relevant laws, all the initial conditions and all the
> forces one might be able to better predict the result? Notice the*
> if*?
First, I'd not beg "that many people have had" as authority. It has no
authority. Many people have seen aliens and angels, too.
Your argument is a mental experiment, but it does not mean that all the
presumptions are correct. Even mental experiments must question
presumptions. What are all the relevant 'laws'? I submit that in order
to make your assertion true, the conditions for the flip would have to
be controlled and therefore it's no longer an opportunity for random
because it's been set-up: it becomes deterministic.
> And what do you think is *the argument*? Perhaps a mere *point* is
> being made.
More futzing with language. What's the difference? Do you understand
what an argument is? It is not a fight. It is a method of presenting an
idea with the purpose of discussing, studying it.
>>> What is being said in this severe objective sense is that no matter what
>>> we found in nature, some result could not have been calculated or
>>> reasoned to.
>> Yes, that is a fully deterministic view of nature.
>>
>
> No, it is discussing quite an opposite context, one in which some
> things *cannot* be determined because of the very *not fully
> deterministic* nature of some things.
OK, thanks for the clarification. So you assert that nature is not
deterministic. (or not 'fully'). So, it is therefore true that, in your
opinion, there are random outcomes to (some) natural events. Correct?
>> > There is no way at all to alter the probability in our
>>> favour. No matter what we find out about the world, if something is
>>> *really random* we will make no progress!
>> No progress in what way?
>>
> No progress in being able to predict which state out of a number that
> are truly equally probable against no matter what information we
> collect before the event
Does that not conflict with your posit regarding the coin flip?
Regardless, you seem to be coming about to the definition of random
given above, "lacking any definite plan or order or purpose; governed by
or depending on chance"
>>> A magic screen that numbers appeared on, uncaused, would be an excellent
>>> context for numbers that appeared to be judged random!
>> I would judge it random, or not, only after applying standard
>> statistics to the sequence of numbers.
>>
>
> You would fail hopelessly for the same reason that the gambler of The
> Gambler's Fallacy fails. If it was a magic screen, you would be a
> complete dope to apply statistical patterns. They would lead you
> astray because they would have no grip in this situation. In our
> actual wold, you see, we have some idea of the complexity of things.
> If we did not, we would not be able to conduct science.
Completely incorrect. It has nothing to do with the Gambler's Fallacy.
No single number can be used to determine randomness. Only by looking at
a series of numbers coming from the same source can one determine
whether the numbers are random. Remember, the outcome is not determined
statistically (IOW, just because a person has not rolled seven for hours
does not mean that the next roll is more likely to be seven. Randomness
does not create statistics and statistics don't control randomness.)
Go back to the accepted definition of random, or find authoritative
sources that contradict the definition. It's really simple.
A doctor friend of mine reminds his fellow motorcyclists that just
because they have not had an accident for years that they are more
likely now than ever to have one: statistics do not cause accidents.
(The riders who posit the opposite are in the Gambler's Fallacy.)
>>> In some parts of
>>> physics, it is said that some things are quite unpredictable, as if it
>>> is in the nature of things to be random between a number of states.
>> Yes, and I never wrote anything that objects to that posit.
>>
>
> So?
Lighten up. It's very simple.
>>> Well, I have no deep objection to calling something "really random" if
>>> there is never in fact any basis to calculate between one state and
>>> another no matter how much an observer studies the matter.
>> Backtracking, I see. You are correcting yourself as you write.
>>
>
> What I see is a dope of a usenet guy into pissing competitions. Learns
> nothing, quotes, looks up dictionaries, misunderstands pretty well
> everything. And someone who is beyond improvement, self correction or
> any correction, a complete inability to grow or change or deepen.
> Proud of those characteristics, eh? What a silly man you are.
Dopey? I welcome you to submit our exchanges in this thread to a group
of informed, rational physicists, mathematicians and rational
philosophers, then reconsider. Usenet guy? What are you if not a usenet
guy/person?
>>> At the heart of this judgement of randomness is still the basic idea
>>> that we have no clue to reason to one state rather than another. It is
>>> just that in *real randomness*, the context includes the idea that the
>>> situation of having no clue is endless and bottomless.
>
>>> Patricia is perfectly right. Take any set of numbers, no matter what
>>> they are, they could continue in any of an infinite number of ways and
>>> there would be a rule to cover each way.
>>> Thus 1 2 3 could continue 4 5 6 or 3 2 1 or 2 4 6 etc
>> That is an invalid argument for randomness.
>
> Why on earth you think it is *an argument for randomness* I have no
> idea?
>
>>> If this Stafford fellow wants to put up some money, let me know,
>>> Patricia, I will supply another 49 formulae. Get his money into escrow
>>> first though! <g>
>
>> How much?
>
> You name the figure and you abide by the sequences mentioned by
> dorayme, not things you get to make up that have nothing to do with
> the matter.
This sequence?
> Thus 1 2 3 could continue 4 5 6 or 3 2 1 or 2 4 6 etc
That sequence? Of what pertinence is that?
I gave you two sequences. They are random. Prove they are not, or show
me the algorithm or method by which they were generated.
Trying to ingratiate yourself to dorayme by arguing with me is silly.
Zinnic
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> >> dorayme wrote:
Snip, snip, snip.
Jonn, this guy Dorayme is playing a game with you. He double-teams
with his invented Patricia. When he cannot hold up his end in a
discussion he calls on Patricia for support and posts under her name
to belittle and insult you. He is a put-down artist, totally
lacking integrity.
Zinnic
dorayme
<35e5bcc9-bba6-4ee7...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
Is he not playing ball? <g> It is hard for him. He is confused by a
number of things and in these cases one cannot deal easily and
rationally with such a person. We will never be able to agree on the
terms of the bet with him because he will never understand the claim I
made.
The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.
In plain English?
If you were watching a screen on which a few numbers came up, first one
and then another and a new one was about to come on, and you literally
had no knowledge about the complexity of the generating engine, any
guess about the next number would be as good as any other guess. And
there are no limits on the supply of candidates!
And to each possible continuation there would be at least one rule that
would cover the sequence to that point.
In plainer still?
If you were watching a screen on which one number came up and you
literally had no knowledge about the complexity of the generating
engine, 15,215,987 would be as good a guess for the second number as 2.
--
dorayme
John Stafford
> In article
> <35e5bcc9-bba6-4ee7...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>> If this Stafford fellow wants to put up some money, let me know,
>>>> Patricia, I will supply another 49 formulae. Get his money into escrow
>>>> first though! <g>
>>> How much?
>> You name the figure and you abide by the sequences mentioned by
>> dorayme, not things you get to make up that have nothing to do with
>> the matter.
>
> Is he not playing ball? <g> It is hard for him. He is confused by a
> number of things and in these cases one cannot deal easily and
> rationally with such a person. We will never be able to agree on the
> terms of the bet with him because he will never understand the claim I
> made.
All of the above can be discarded because it is just merely personal
attacks and also has nothing to do with the substance of the issue.
> The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
> coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
> the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
> matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
> formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.
Proof, please? You have asserted something that no mathematician in
history has proposed. I presume you have a proof. If you do not, then
your are just spewing nonsense. And you are. I gave you a sequence a few
post ago. Show me how they were made.
>
> In plain English?
>
> If you were watching a screen on which a few numbers came up, first one
> and then another and a new one was about to come on, and you literally
> had no knowledge about the complexity of the generating engine, any
> guess about the next number would be as good as any other guess. And
> there are no limits on the supply of candidates!
So what does that demonstrate? Take the entire sequence and apply
elementary tests that show whether they are random or not. Are you so
innumerate that you cannot understand that?
> And to each possible continuation there would be at least one rule that
> would cover the sequence to that point.
>
> In plainer still?
SURE. Apply it to the sequences I posted: show me the formula (your
words) or method by which it is determinate.
> If you were watching a screen on which one number came up and you
> literally had no knowledge about the complexity of the generating
> engine, 15,215,987 would be as good a guess for the second number as 2.
One number is not a sample.
You are demonstrating how ignorant you are.
Best do better or beg off.
Patricia Aldoraz
...
> Jonn, this guy Dorayme is playing a game with you. He double-teams
> with his invented Patricia. When he cannot hold up his end in a
> discussion he calls on Patricia for support and posts under her name
> to belittle and insult you. He is a put-down artist, totally
> lacking integrity.
> Zinnic
I nearly said, don't be a fool Zinnic! How silly of me to even
bother.
Both dorayme and I are discussing an interesting matter here. No one
is tricking anyone. In the posts from dorayme and myself, discount a
few jokey and absurd personal insults, there is more actual philosophy
and thinking in just these exchanges than you would ever manage in a
lifetime.
It has become a little disjointed because Stafford, someone who
obviously has no philosophical background is overly concerned with
issues that are *not fundamental*. He is concerned with tiny and
specific issues about random distribution and cannot see that these
can be analysed from the fundamentals that dorayme has kindly laid
down from his pure insightful basics.
Anyway, there is no point in going into these things with you. You act
like a backwater toothless hillbilly and seem to have as a main
activity following two fine upstanding usenet characters like dorayme
and me around merely on some sort of crusade to smear and belittle.
Not up to the job of actual philosophy?
John Stafford
So, Aldoraz and dorame:
Define random as it pleases you. We will hold you accountable for
further discussion.
No more waving your hands about. Make it so.
> It has become a little disjointed because Stafford, someone who
> obviously has no philosophical background
Oxford, 1964-1968. You?
Patricia Aldoraz
> > <35e5bcc9-bba6-4ee7-ab3e-d431ce7bb...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> >>> dorayme wrote:
> > The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
> > coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
> > the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
> > matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
> > formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.
>
> Proof, please?
What proof could there be for this that was clearer than the plain
obviousness of it? You simply plain misunderstand it. You never, I
notice, ever say what *you* understand by dorayme's claim, in *your
own words*. You just quote him and say stuff like "Proof please" and
this tells me that you are not understanding what is being said. If
you did, you would be unlikely to be asking for a proof. It is not
anything that is even controversial.
> You have asserted something that no mathematician in
> history has proposed.
There you go again. dorayme is describing a particular example of
numbers coming up on a screen and has said various true things about
it and you are complaining you cannot find some authority figure here
that has asserted this example? Or asserted something like dorayme has
asserted.
Do some work John and do not hang on other people's words. Show what
you imagine is the case that is being presented to you. dorayme gave
you plainer and plainer versions and still you are no closer to
understanding?
> I presume you have a proof. If you do not, then
> your are just spewing nonsense. And you are. I gave you a sequence a few
> post ago. Show me how they were made.
>
What on earth have your sequences got to do with the ones we are
talking about here? Go back and understand what is being put to you
and we will come back to your sequences. Deal with the ones put to you
first.
>
> > In plain English?
>
> > If you were watching a screen on which a few numbers came up, first one
> > and then another and a new one was about to come on, and you literally
> > had no knowledge about the complexity of the generating engine, any
> > guess about the next number would be as good as any other guess. And
> > there are no limits on the supply of candidates!
>
> So what does that demonstrate?
It is a simple demonstration of the idea of a human being being in the
presence of random events, one after the other. It is an illustration
of what dorayme started off with in the first place, namely that the
essential guts of the concept of randomness is to be found in there
not being anything to judge an outcome on, one way or another. All
other uses of random can be derived from this. he has conceded under
some concerns from you and Matt that there is a sense of objective
randomness. And that this latter is to be understood in terms of there
never ever being any grounds no matter how much anyone will or could
ever know about the world for preferring one punt over another in a
choice two (or more) possible outcomes of a random event.
> Take the entire sequence and apply
> elementary tests that show whether they are random or not. Are you so
> innumerate that you cannot understand that?
>
And are you so generally blinkered that you cannot understand that the
word "random" is not confined to just one sort of case? You are
misunderstanding the case put to you. You are obsessed with a
*different case*. I can see that you will not be distracted from this
obsession and so I better deal with it right now. You are concerned
with some superficial case whereby if a million numbers came up
confirming some interpretation, that for you would be sufficient to
brand it as not random.
You watch the screen and 1 comes up, repeatedly for hours on end. The
formula, according to the notation of dorayme would be a(n)=1. For
you, this probably is a case of a non-random distribution. For me and
dorayme, it is nothing of the sort! And it is not for any
misunderstanding of mathematics, it is for the good reason that no
amount of cases strengthens the case for a real pattern if you
literally take seriously that you have no idea at all of the
complexity of the generating machinery. You have never appreciated
this wider and deeper point. It is probably not something that your
mind can stretch to. You are stuck in the shadows and cannot see the
heart of things. A trillion 1s in a row is not a wit less random a
distribution than any other sequence in theory.
The trouble is you are not thinking at this fundamental level of
philosophical theory, you are boxing on the surface of real life. In
real life on earth, if we saw so many 1s, this would be evidence that
the distribution was not random. But this is because we would see this
as evidence for a certain simplicity in the generating engine.
The whole of science works on the basis of positing simplicity. But
the case put to you by dorayme, to show the deep structure of
randomness, is that we have no idea of the complexity of the
generating machinery. It was a point that dorayme put to Walter in
Robot Consciousness and even Walter, who has a better feel for
philosophy than you, did not quite appreciate at the time, he kept
falling into the trap of re-introducing a knowledge where the case
called for express exclusion of this knowledge. Look at the discussion
on The Gambler's Fallacy and bare dispositions.
> > And to each possible continuation there would be at least one rule that
> > would cover the sequence to that point.
>
> > In plainer still?
>
> > If you were watching a screen on which one number came up and you
> > literally had no knowledge about the complexity of the generating
> > engine, 15,215,987 would be as good a guess for the second number as 2.
>
> One number is not a sample.
>
You are showing your misunderstanding of the case put to you by this
remark. It is as good a sample as fifty million numbers. In purely
mathematical terms, in the sea of infinity, fifty million 1s in a row
is no more privileged than any other fifty million numbers in a row.
> You are demonstrating how ignorant you are.
>
> Best do better or beg off.
It is almost laughable watching your self deceptions! Where else but
usenet can one see such incredible cases as this. You are assuming
ignorance on the basis of your own. I know pretty well what you are
ignorant in and what you are not ignorant in. No, you are not a
complete fool (like say turtoni or zinnic), But, let's face it,
philosophy is not your natural talent, John. Be more humble and you
might be able to pick up a teensy weeny bit.
Zinnic
wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...@gate.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Jonn, this guy Dorayme is playing a game with you. He double-teams
> > with his invented Patricia. When he cannot hold up his end in a
> > discussion he calls on Patricia for support and posts under her name
> > to belittle and insult you. He is a put-down artist, totally
> > lacking integrity.
> > Zinnic
>
> I nearly said, don't be a fool Zinnic! How silly of me to even
> bother.
>
> Both dorayme and I are discussing an interesting matter here. No one
> is tricking anyone. In the posts from dorayme and myself, discount a
> few jokey and absurd personal insults, there is more actual philosophy
> and thinking in just these exchanges than you would ever manage in a
> lifetime.
Your admission that you spew out absurd personal insults is the
first step in your rehabilitation. These insults are egregious
denials of genuine philosophical discussion. The mainstay of
productive philosophical exchanges is a sympathetic reading of
other's views. Obviously you do not subscibe to this. Your contempt
does nor contribute to, but destroys philosophy.
Your claim that you and your proxy engage in actual philosophy is an
'absurd' insult to philosophers past and present. Your infantile
philosophical position is that, because everything is not yet known,
then all views expressed by others may be invalid. Of course they may
be , but then they may not be invalid.. That you select yourself as
the sole arbiter is not philosophy, it is arrogance.
This along with your claims that improbabilities may be logically
possible, is the superficial extent of your philosophic insight. How
shallow! One expects so much more of deep thinkers.
> It has become a little disjointed because Stafford, someone who
> obviously has no philosophical background is overly concerned with
> issues that are *not fundamental*. He is concerned with tiny and
> specific issues about random distribution and cannot see that these
> can be analysed from the fundamentals that dorayme has kindly laid
> down from his pure insightful basics.
>
> Anyway, there is no point in going into these things with you. You act
> like a backwater toothless hillbilly and seem to have as a main
> activity following two fine upstanding usenet characters like dorayme
> and me around merely on some sort of crusade to smear and belittle.
> Not up to the job of actual philosophy?
Dorayme, your seem obsessed with those 'backwater toothless hill
billies'. Do you sexually compensate for your inclinations by
imagining situations in which you get fresh with an imagined female
Patricia (remember, you said that she would hit you with her
handbag). Do you not realise that you are playing a "crying game"
when you imagine reaching for her genitals? That is, you are
actually reaching for and abusing your own penile member.
Zinnic
turtoni
Well said!
> > It has become a little disjointed because Stafford, someone who
> > obviously has no philosophical background is overly concerned with
> > issues that are *not fundamental*. He is concerned with tiny and
> > specific issues about random distribution and cannot see that these
> > can be analysed from the fundamentals that dorayme has kindly laid
> > down from his pure insightful basics.
>
> > Anyway, there is no point in going into these things with you. You act
> > like a backwater toothless hillbilly and seem to have as a main
> > activity following two fine upstanding usenet characters like dorayme
> > and me around merely on some sort of crusade to smear and belittle.
> > Not up to the job of actual philosophy?
>
> Dorayme, your seem obsessed with those 'backwater toothless hill
> billies'. Do you sexually compensate for your inclinations by
> imagining situations in which you get fresh with an imagined female
> Patricia (remember, you said that she would hit you with her
> handbag). Do you not realise that you are playing a "crying game"
> when you imagine reaching for her genitals? That is, you are
> actually reaching for and abusing your own penile member.
> Zinnic
the "heh heh heh" is my version of Dr Evil in the Austin Powers film
series.
turtoni
> billies'. Do you sexually compensate for your inclinations by
> imagining situations in which you get fresh with an imagined female
> Patricia (remember, you said that she would hit you with her
> handbag). Do you not realise that you are playing a "crying game"
> when you imagine reaching for her genitals? That is, you are
> actually reaching for and abusing your own penile member.
> Zinnic
I seem to remember Pat stating it wasn't female sometime ago.
But perhaps if Pat is female, men will bring the avatar free loot.!
John Stafford
> On Jul 26, 11:03 am, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <35e5bcc9-bba6-4ee7-ab3e-d431ce7bb...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>>>>> dorayme wrote:
>
>>> The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
>>> coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
>>> the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
>>> matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
>>> formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.
>> Proof, please?
>
> What proof could there be for this that was clearer than the plain
> obviousness of it? You simply plain misunderstand it. You never, I
> notice, ever say what *you* understand by dorayme's claim, in *your
> own words*. You just quote him and say stuff like "Proof please" and
> this tells me that you are not understanding what is being said. If
> you did, you would be unlikely to be asking for a proof. It is not
> anything that is even controversial.
I did understand what was proposed. Why am I required to rephrase it?
Because YOU did not understand it?
>> You have asserted something that no mathematician in
>> history has proposed.
>
> There you go again. dorayme is describing a particular example of
> numbers coming up on a screen and has said various true things about
> it and you are complaining you cannot find some authority figure here
> that has asserted this example? Or asserted something like dorayme has
> asserted.
You are blithering.
> Do some work John and do not hang on other people's words. Show what
> you imagine is the case that is being presented to you. dorayme gave
> you plainer and plainer versions and still you are no closer to
> understanding?
I understand the case. You do not. You propose nonsense and beg me to
participate in your inane blithering? No thank you. Learn.
> It is a simple demonstration of the idea of a human being being in the
> presence of random events, one after the other. It is an illustration
> of what dorayme started off with in the first place, namely that the
> essential guts of the concept of randomness is to be found in there
> not being anything to judge an outcome on, one way or another.
That is not what was proposed by you or your sock-puppet. What was
proposed was that not knowing how an outcome was contrived, calculated,
or made-up was key. I wrote that the series of output/outcome can be
judged to be random or not, and it does not matter if one understands or
knows how the output/outcome was determined.
> And are you so generally blinkered that you cannot understand that the
> word "random" is not confined to just one sort of case? You are
> misunderstanding the case put to you. You are obsessed with a
> *different case*. I can see that you will not be distracted from this
> obsession and so I better deal with it right now. You are concerned
> with some superficial case whereby if a million numbers came up
> confirming some interpretation, that for you would be sufficient to
> brand it as not random.
It appears that you prefer to be uninformed and to invent meanings
rather than to learn. Look at the unnecessary buzz you put into your
writing: "superficial", "million". Neither of those words change the
incident.
> You watch the screen and 1 comes up, repeatedly for hours on end. The
> formula, according to the notation of dorayme would be a(n)=1.
That means absolutely nothing. What do you imagine it means? Do you
imagine that that expression somehow magically means n is random?
Sequential? Unknown? Is n what you consider the hidden something that
determines random or not?
You like to type. Try thinking and stop making shit up.
> For
> you, this probably is a case of a non-random distribution. For me and
> dorayme, it is nothing of the sort! And it is not for any
> misunderstanding of mathematics, it is for the good reason that no
> amount of cases strengthens the case for a real pattern if you
> literally take seriously that you have no idea at all of the
> complexity of the generating machinery. You have never appreciated
> this wider and deeper point. It is probably not something that your
> mind can stretch to. You are stuck in the shadows and cannot see the
> heart of things. A trillion 1s in a row is not a wit less random a
> distribution than any other sequence in theory.
I never wrote that a trillion or ten would be different as it concerns
randomness. It is not the number of integers, but the distribution, the
likelihood of a pattern that is not strictly by chance.
I'll bet you argue with yourself a lot.
> The trouble is you are not thinking at this fundamental level of
> philosophical theory, you are boxing on the surface of real life. In
> real life on earth, if we saw so many 1s, this would be evidence that
> the distribution was not random. But this is because we would see this
> as evidence for a certain simplicity in the generating engine.
No. That's a common fallacy. Humans will tend to see patterns where they
really do not exist. Humans have a tendency to impose order against a
random collection. Study up on simple psychology. Don't stop at the
Gamblers Fallacy this time. Learn.
> The whole of science works on the basis of positing simplicity. But
> the case put to you by dorayme, to show the deep structure of
> randomness, is that we have no idea of the complexity of the
> generating machinery.
Nope. Knowing how the random stream/series was generated is not
important. There is your fallacy. Knowing how to tell whether the
outcome is random or not is important.
> It was a point that dorayme put to Walter in
> Robot Consciousness and even Walter, who has a better feel for
> philosophy than you, did not quite appreciate at the time, he kept
> falling into the trap of re-introducing a knowledge where the case
> called for express exclusion of this knowledge. Look at the discussion
> on The Gambler's Fallacy and bare dispositions.
I see what's happening. You cannot hold an ordered thought for more than
fifty words so you fall back into your confusion and start all over in
your conception with new confusions so that you prefer to make it up
again as you go. You cannot move forward. Sorry to see that and, of
course, this ends our communication.
dorayme
<8167215c-bde0-4b5c...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 11:03 am, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> > dorayme wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <35e5bcc9-bba6-4ee7-ab3e-d431ce7bb...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Patricia Aldoraz <patricia.aldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> > >>> dorayme wrote:
>
> > > The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
> > > coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
> > > the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
> > > matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
> > > formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.
> >
> > Proof, please?
>
> What proof could there be for this that was clearer than the plain
> obviousness of it? You simply plain misunderstand it. It is not
> anything that is even controversial.
>
Well, yes, this is correct. It just needs to be understood to be
assented to.
For example, suppose the screen showed one number after the other, we
were to guess what might be next at each stage. But we had no idea at
all about the complexity of the program of the machine that was
producing the numbers or even if anything was producing the numbers, it
being perhaps a magical happening. What could we say was a more likely
number than any other after the very first number (n=1), 1? There is
simply no number that is more likely than any other number for second
place.
Here are some formulae to cover a few of the possibilities. Most folk
with elementary maths skills should be able to see that these can be
added to at will and they will all start a series with 1 and diverge
from there on. The principle is not different if we had more starting
place numbers to be constant across possible series, it is just that the
formulae would be more complex.
a(n)=n
a(n)=2n-1
a(n)=3n-2
a(n)=4n-3
a(n)=5n-4
a(n)=6n-5
a(n)=7n-6
a(n)=8n-7
a(n)=9n-8
Each of these formulae generate a different series, but all of them
start with 1.
It is easy enough to devise formulae types (you should notice a pattern
above) to cover a larger number of places than just where n=1. But not
so easy when the number of places needing covering becomes large. But
ease is not the issue here.
--
dorayme
Patricia Aldoraz
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
...
> >>>>> dorayme wrote:
>
> >>> The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
> >>> coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
> >>> the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
> >>> matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
> >>> formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.
> >> Proof, please?
>
> > What proof could there be for this that was clearer than the plain
> > obviousness of it? You simply plain misunderstand it. You never, I
> > notice, ever say what *you* understand by dorayme's claim, in *your
> > own words*. You just quote him and say stuff like "Proof please" and
> > this tells me that you are not understanding what is being said. If
> > you did, you would be unlikely to be asking for a proof. It is not
> > anything that is even controversial.
>
> I did understand what was proposed. Why am I required to rephrase it?
>
Yes, it would help you if you showed understanding. The things you
say make it clear you are confused about the lines of argument and
what is essentially relevant and what is not.
dorayme was asked to say what random is. He said, in effect, that at
the heart of it was the idea that reason had nothing to grip on to
judge one outcome from another outcome. You did not understand this.
The idea of random in all situations, including the idea of a random
series of numbers can be derived from this simple idea.
>
> > dorayme is describing a particular example of
> > numbers coming up on a screen and has said various true things about
> > it and you are complaining you cannot find some authority figure here
> > that has asserted this example? Or asserted something like dorayme has
> > asserted.
>
> You are blithering.
>
You mean, you do not understand these simple sentences.
> > It is a simple demonstration of the idea of a human being being in the
> > presence of random events, one after the other. It is an illustration
> > of what dorayme started off with in the first place, namely that the
> > essential guts of the concept of randomness is to be found in there
> > not being anything to judge an outcome on, one way or another.
>
> What was
> proposed was that not knowing how an outcome was contrived, calculated,
> or made-up was key.
It was proposed that talk of random is appropriate in situations where
there is nothing to judge one outcome from another, sometimes some
uses allow there simply to be ignorance, other uses have been conceded
to be deeper and include how the world has nothing that could ever be
used to decide the issue.
> I wrote that the series of output/outcome can be
> judged to be random or not, and it does not matter if one understands or
> knows how the output/outcome was determined.
>
This is a confusion. If one knows how the generator is generating the
numbers, one ipso facto has a basis on which to rule against random.
> > ... the
> > word "random" is not confined to just one sort of case ...
> > You are concerned
> > with ... a ... case whereby if a million numbers came up
> > confirming some interpretation, that for you would be sufficient to
> > brand it as not random.
>
Is this correct or not? Would you want to say that a million 1s would
be an argument for non-randomness even if you assumed there was no
*other* information (besides the numbers) to be going on?
Simple enough question? It is either yes or no for you. If you do not
understand the question, this shows to me that you are missing an
important feature of what dorayme has been teaching us. dorayme takes
The Gambler's Fallacy very seriously you see. Maybe he had a searing
experience in a casino once and has never forgotten it. Men are so
silly with gambling!
>
> > You watch the screen and 1 comes up, repeatedly for hours on end. The
> > formula, according to the notation of dorayme would be a(n)=1.
>
> That means absolutely nothing.
Dear o dear. Absolutely nothing to you eh? Read the explanation of the
symbols again. It is a formula andt it predicts the numbers at the nth
place in the series of numbers being presented. The sense of
prediction is quite common in many world languages.
> > For
> > you, this probably is a case of a non-random distribution. For me and
> > dorayme, it is nothing of the sort! And it is not for any
> > misunderstanding of mathematics, it is for the good reason that no
> > amount of cases strengthens the case for a real pattern if you
> > literally take seriously that you have no idea at all of the
> > complexity of the generating machinery. You have never appreciated
> > this wider and deeper point. It is probably not something that your
> > mind can stretch to. You are stuck in the shadows and cannot see the
> > heart of things. A trillion 1s in a row is not a wit less random a
> > distribution than any other sequence in theory.
>
> I never wrote that a trillion or ten would be different as it concerns
> randomness. It is not the number of integers, but the distribution, the
> likelihood of a pattern that is not strictly by chance.
>
OK. What is the distribution in the situation we have been dealing
with, since you are so intensely interested in *distribution*. You
are watching the screen. Youhave no knowledge at all of the
complexityof the generator and a million 1s come up. What is the
distribution? WTF do you want to make of this distribution. Why do I
get the feeling that I man not going to get the least sensible answer
from you?
> I'll bet you argue with yourself a lot.
I went to the doctor the other day.
"What is the matter?", she asked.
"Doctor, I talk to myself"
"That's OK, plenty of people talk to themselves"
"But Doctor, I talk to myself a lot"
"It's nothing to worry about, it is not so bad ..."
"Ah! But Doctor, you don't understand how boring I am!"
>
> > ... if we saw many 1s, this would be evidence that
> > the distribution was not random. But this is because we would see this
> > as evidence for a certain simplicity in the generating engine.
>
> No. That's a common fallacy. Humans will tend to see patterns where they
> really do not exist.
It is not a fallacy at all. If any rational person saw a screen that
printed nothing but 1s for days on end, he would probably justified in
supposing that a(next) would be a 1. You seem quite lost in all of
this? dorayme and I are the ones saying that apparent patterns might
not be real patterns. And when either of us make points like this, you
always shake your head in denial. Patterns we seem to see are the
very heart of science. Yes, we often go wrong. So what?
> Humans have a tendency to impose order against a
> random collection.
This is what I have been saying and you have not been seeming to
appreciate it. I have been putting the point constantly that mere
sequence of numbers, in themselves, are no evidence of non-random.
They only become evidence when we apply assumptions of simplicity to
the world. Instead of studying psychology and astrology, I recommend
you take a good course in The Philosophy of Science.
> > The whole of science works on the basis of positing simplicity. But
> > the case put to you by dorayme, to show the deep structure of
> > randomness, is that we have no idea of the complexity of the
> > generating machinery.
>
> Nope. Knowing how the random stream/series was generated is not
> important. There is your fallacy. Knowing how to tell whether the
> outcome is random or not is important.
>
The argument is all about what story the numbers, just by themselves,
tell. And they tell nothing much at all in themselves. You are looking
in the wrong place for the basis of randomness.
John Stafford
If I understand your notation, and n is first 1, that would give a
series of: 1,3,7,13,21,31,43,57,73
or: a_n = n^2-n+1
with generating formula: G_n(a_n)(z) = (-z^2-1)/(z-1)^3
with an anticipable continuance of: 91,111,133,157,183,211,241,273,...
standard deviation of: ~25.4
> Each of these formulae generate a different series, but all of them
> start with 1.
The outcome is not random and the generation of the outcome is
calculable and repeatable.
> It is easy enough to devise formulae types (you should notice a pattern
> above) to cover a larger number of places than just where n=1. But not
> so easy when the number of places needing covering becomes large. But
> ease is not the issue here.
Please, once again, how does this apply to randomness?
John Stafford
> On Jul 26, 7:19 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> ...
>>>>>>> dorayme wrote:
>>>>> The claim is simple: If a bunch of numbers, one after another were
>>>>> coming up on a screen: a(1) a(2) a(3) ... a(n), where a is the number at
>>>>> the nth place in the sequence that appears, a and n being integers, no
>>>>> matter what values a and n are given, there are an infinite number of
>>>>> formulae that would generate the sequence up to n.
>>>> Proof, please?
>>> What proof could there be for this that was clearer than the plain
>>> obviousness of it? You simply plain misunderstand it. You never, I
>>> notice, ever say what *you* understand by dorayme's claim, in *your
>>> own words*. You just quote him and say stuff like "Proof please" and
>>> this tells me that you are not understanding what is being said. If
>>> you did, you would be unlikely to be asking for a proof. It is not
>>> anything that is even controversial.
>> I did understand what was proposed. Why am I required to rephrase it?
>>
>
> Yes, it would help you if you showed understanding. The things you
> say make it clear you are confused about the lines of argument and
> what is essentially relevant and what is not.
Actually, your constant reinterpretation of dorayme is what you expect
me to accept. I cannot. I will address dorayme's posts directly. We are
done.
> dorayme was asked to say what random is. He said, in effect, that at
> the heart of it was the idea that reason had nothing to grip on to
> judge one outcome from another outcome. You did not understand this.
You do not know how to determine randomness. You are simply innumerate.
> The idea of random in all situations, including the idea of a random
> series of numbers can be derived from this simple idea.
What idea? You have nothing but vapor!
>
>>> dorayme is describing a particular example of
>>> numbers coming up on a screen and has said various true things about
>>> it and you are complaining you cannot find some authority figure here
>>> that has asserted this example? Or asserted something like dorayme has
>>> asserted.
>> You are blithering.
>>
>
> You mean, you do not understand these simple sentences.
See my response to dorayme later in this group. I am done dealing with
you, and he should be too unless he is determined to have this whole
theme muddled between the two of you.
>>> It is a simple demonstration of the idea of a human being being in the
>>> presence of random events, one after the other. It is an illustration
>>> of what dorayme started off with in the first place, namely that the
>>> essential guts of the concept of randomness is to be found in there
>>> not being anything to judge an outcome on, one way or another.
>
>> What was
>> proposed was that not knowing how an outcome was contrived, calculated,
>> or made-up was key.
>
> It was proposed that talk of random is appropriate in situations where
> there is nothing to judge one outcome from another, sometimes some
> uses allow there simply to be ignorance, other uses have been conceded
> to be deeper and include how the world has nothing that could ever be
> used to decide the issue.
OK, the deeper, undecidable part is agreeable, but I thought we were
also addressing the nature of random.
While it is true (and I think we agree) that few mathematicians would
presume a process is completely random, or as the outcome of caluclating
PI or other nonalgebraic cases (transcendentals), we can still measure
whether an outcome is random. We need not know whether the universe, for
example, is actually deterministic or not: we need not know what the
fundamental mechanism is for causing random outcomes.
Yet so far we have not found how radiation from decay can be ordered.
>> I wrote that the series of output/outcome can be
>> judged to be random or not, and it does not matter if one understands or
>> knows how the output/outcome was determined.
>>
>
> This is a confusion. If one knows how the generator is generating the
> numbers, one ipso facto has a basis on which to rule against random.
I am not certain that is true. See PI. Nonalgebraic computation. We
don't have enough cases of such to know very much at all yet.
So let you and I cease on an agreeable note. Nothing else you wrote
clarifies dorayme's posit. I'll work with him now.
Matt Silberstein
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
<doraymeRidThis-542...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>In article <sjok65djndkbbh73s...@4ax.com>,
> Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:16:36 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
>> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
>> <doraymeRidThis-687...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <ak4k65lnjl2m2b1f5...@4ax.com>,
>> > Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:20:41 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
>> >> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
>> >> <doraymeRidThis-498...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >...
>> >> >
>> >> > a random number is a number that
>> >> >pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
>> >>
>> >> A random number is one such that knowing the previous numbers in the
>> >> sequence to not provide us a better prediction of the next number in
>> >> the sequence.
>> >
>> >Not really, because here might just be *one* number caused to appear.
>> >Previous and future might not come into it in fact. The idea of "not
>> >having a clue how it was in detail generated" captures our intuitive
>> >notion better.
>>
>> I disagree because I don't care how it actually is determined, I care
>> if I can know.
>
>You care about knowing *what* exactly?
The next number in the stream.
>> But now we are into a very different set of issues.
>> Suppose I have a nice useful predictive model that works, but is not
>> how the numbers are actually generated. Is the number random? I would
>> say not.
>
>You having a nice predictive model sounds to me like you do have a clue
>how the numbers are generated.
Ah, that is an interesting question, isn't it? Are two formulas the
same if they produce the same result, but do so differently? Are they
the same if they have very different side effects? Take two computer
programs that, as one aspect, produce an equivalent number screen. But
one also displays a wide range of images on the screen. Are these the
same process?
>I hope you don't think I mean something
>crude by generating to mean simply knowledge of the actual metal or
>silicon structure of the generator. I am talking about not having a clue
>about the algorithm or rule or formula or operational method of the
>generator or any idea at all about its complexity.
I don't think you mean something crude, but I do think that there is
an interesting question in this part. (By interesting I mean hard, not
interesting to me.)
>A severed water pipe might seem on close examination to emit a definable
>pattern of drips and flows from its open end. Presumably it is "not
>really random" if the pattern is caused by some set of valves in a tank
>some way off that are programmed to open and shut at set times etc?
It can be non-random or random. Water dripping is a pretty classic
random process.
>And, more interestingly, it is "really random",
OK, since we are going to discuss things, understand that my hackles
get up when I read bout the "really X". Don't play games with me, the
world is sufficiently real for me, I don't care if it is really real.
Now back to the discussion:
>if the non-water
>emitting end of the pipe about thirty metres away is found to be simply
>open and unconnected to any supply of water, the pipe unbroken along the
>way, unable to hold much water itself, yet going on for months gushing
>water and stopping gushing, dripping and not dripping. By magic? And you
>are imagining in this possible world, that someone might have a
>predictive model?
Sure. You assert magic, I assert some process we don't yet know about.
Perhaps it is non-natural, but even non-natural can be predictable.
But we are going to far afield, re-phrase your question.
>This to me sounds like a fantasy case that commits The Gambler's
>Fallacy. You have no predictive model, it is just a flukey case that has
>no rhyme or reason. You ought not to bet on it if you really, really
>knew that the pipe was a magic pipe.
--
John Stafford
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:15:32 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
>> A severed water pipe might seem on close examination to emit a definable
>> pattern of drips and flows from its open end. Presumably it is "not
>> really random" if the pattern is caused by some set of valves in a tank
>> some way off that are programmed to open and shut at set times etc?
>
> It can be non-random or random. Water dripping is a pretty classic
> random process.
Actually, the better classification for that is 'chaotic'. The
difference between random and chaos is subtle. Much chaotic behavior can
be simulated with very simple methods. That's the charm. See recent
publications of simulating atmospheric chaotic behavior with water
droplets in a quite different method. I can find the article at work if
necessary
>
>> And, more interestingly, it is "really random",
>
> OK, since we are going to discuss things, understand that my hackles
> get up when I read bout the "really X". Don't play games with me, the
> world is sufficiently real for me, I don't care if it is really real.
> Now back to the discussion:
>
>> if the non-water
>> emitting end of the pipe about thirty metres away is found to be simply
>> open and unconnected to any supply of water, the pipe unbroken along the
>> way, unable to hold much water itself, yet going on for months gushing
>> water and stopping gushing, dripping and not dripping. By magic? And you
>> are imagining in this possible world, that someone might have a
>> predictive model?
>
> Sure. You assert magic, I assert some process we don't yet know about.
> Perhaps it is non-natural, but even non-natural can be predictable.
> But we are going to far afield, re-phrase your question.
Indeed, he needs to rephrase to get back to philosophy or logical
language. Magic is literature.
>> This to me sounds like a fantasy case that commits The Gambler's
>> Fallacy. You have no predictive model, it is just a flukey case that has
>> no rhyme or reason. You ought not to bet on it if you really, really
>> knew that the pipe was a magic pipe.
Inappropriate assertion of the Gamblers Fallacy which only serves to
muddy the proposition.
Jim Burns
[...]
> Here are some formulae to cover a few of the possibilities. Most folk
> with elementary maths skills should be able to see that these can be
> added to at will and they will all start a series with 1 and diverge
> from there on. The principle is not different if we had more starting
> place numbers to be constant across possible series, it is just that the
> formulae would be more complex.
>
> a(n)=n
> a(n)=2n-1
> a(n)=3n-2
> a(n)=4n-3
> a(n)=5n-4
> a(n)=6n-5
> a(n)=7n-6
> a(n)=8n-7
> a(n)=9n-8
>
> Each of these formulae generate a different series, but all of them
> start with 1.
>
> It is easy enough to devise formulae types (you should notice a pattern
> above) to cover a larger number of places than just where n=1. But not
> so easy when the number of places needing covering becomes large. But
> ease is not the issue here.
Actually, it's still pretty easy, conceptually. True, the
required calculations grow pretty quickly.
If we're given n data points, (y_1, ..., y_n), there is
exactly one polynomial of order (n-1) that runs through
the points {(y_1, 1), (y_2, 2), ..., (y_n, n)}. (See ***
for calculating the polynomial.)
If you want to find a polynomial that predicts that
the next data point after measuring (y_1, ..., y_n)
will be Y_(n+1), where Y_(n+1) can be anything at all,
just calculate the order n polynomial that runs through
the points
{(y_1, 1), (y_2, 2), ..., (y_n, n), (Y_(n+1), n+1)}.
If you want a polynomial that "predicts" your name in
ASCII after a thousand random-looking data points, tack
your name in ASCII onto the end of those specific random-
looking data points and crunch the numbers again.
***
Suppose n = 4. Find the coefficients (a_0, ..., a_3)
that give us a polynomial P(n), where
P(n) = a_0 + a_1*n + a_2*n^2 + a_3*n^3
which evaluates to the specified data points,
P(1) = a_0 + a_1*1 + a_2*1^2 + a_3*1^3 = y_1
P(2) = a_0 + a_1*2 + a_2*2^2 + a_3*2^3 = y_2
P(3) = a_0 + a_1*3 + a_2*3^2 + a_3*3^3 = y_3
P(4) = a_0 + a_1*4 + a_2*1^4 + a_3*4^3 = y_4
Notice that, by treating the coefficients a_i as the
variables, we have four linear equations in four
unknowns. In matrix form,
[ 1 1 1 1 ][ a_0 ] [ y_1 ]
[ 1 2 4 8 ][ a_1 ] = [ y_2 ]
[ 1 3 9 27 ][ a_2 ] [ y_3 ]
[ 1 4 16 64 ][ a_3 ] [ y_4 ]
It happens that every square matrix B = [ b_ij ]
with b_ij = i^(j-1) is invertible, so we have
[ a_0 ] [ 1 1 1 1 ]^-1[ y_1 ]
[ a_1 ] = [ 1 2 4 8 ] [ y_2 ]
[ a_2 ] [ 1 3 9 27 ] [ y_3 ]
[ a_3 ] [ 1 4 16 64 ] [ y_4 ]
Done.
Jim Burns
dorayme
Jim Burns <burn...@osu.edu> wrote:
Yes, indeed, conceptually dead easy. It is even easy to give an
unmathematical person many rules that start a series with 1 2 3 4 5 ...
but continue in quite different ways:
Make the first five places as if counting from 1 and then keep repeating
the count for each set of five place: 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2
3 4 5...
Make the first five places as if counting from 1 and then reverse count
these same numbers for the next five places, alternating both
procedures: 1 2 3 4 5 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 4 3 2 1...
It should be obvious that there is no limit to the series that begin
with any numbers continuing in "a different way". For those with a
*philosophical* interest in this matter, I put the last phrase in quotes
because, in fact, if any rule *at all* is being followed (eg. a person
or program is really using it to generate the numbers), it does not
matter what the 6th and subsequent places in the series are: the numbers
are following in *the same way*. The *same way* refers to the actual
rule being followed, not some other imagined rule that would generate
the first five places.
Thanks for going to the trouble, Jim.
--
dorayme
dorayme
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:15:32 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
> >> >> >
> >> >> > a random number is a number that
> >> >> >pops up before us without us having a clue as to how it was generated.
> >> >>
> >> >> A random number is one such that knowing the previous numbers in the
> >> >> sequence to not provide us a better prediction of the next number in
> >> >> the sequence.
> >> >
> >> >Not really, because here might just be *one* number caused to appear.
> >> >Previous and future might not come into it in fact. The idea of "not
> >> >having a clue how it was in detail generated" captures our intuitive
> >> >notion better.
> >>
> >> I disagree because I don't care how it actually is determined, I care
> >> if I can know.
> >
> >You care about knowing *what* exactly?
>
> The next number in the stream.
>
We all care about this in this discussion! It being random is, I am
saying, to be understood in terms of there being nothing we can reason
from to determine it.
> >> But now we are into a very different set of issues.
> >> Suppose I have a nice useful predictive model that works, but is not
> >> how the numbers are actually generated. Is the number random? I would
> >> say not.
> >
...
>
> >A severed water pipe might seem on close examination to emit a definable
> >pattern of drips and flows from its open end. Presumably it is "not
> >really random" if the pattern is caused by some set of valves in a tank
> >some way off that are programmed to open and shut at set times etc?
>
> It can be non-random or random. Water dripping is a pretty classic
> random process.
>
> >And, more interestingly, it is "really random",
>
> OK, since we are going to discuss things, understand that my hackles
> get up when I read bout the "really X". Don't play games with me, the
> world is sufficiently real for me, I don't care if it is really real.
> Now back to the discussion:
>
My phrase had a specific meaning in the context. I make a distinction
between being random and appearing to be random for the purists.
Appearing to be random is almost self explanatory. A person looks at a
series of events and can see no causal engine to explain it. He says it
is random. If it turns out that there is a causal engine, and the
pattern is complex (unseen by the man), we might reasonable say it is
not random at all. If it turns out or it is a fact that there is no
causal engine to explain it, then it is more than merely appearing to be
random. It is really random!
None of this is to be confused with a man thinking something is not
random because he thinks he sees the pattern. He could simply be wrong.
He would soon find out by filing to predict something in the context.
Now, you might like to conjure up the idea of having a hypothesis that
is perfectly successfully predictive but has nothing really to do with
how the events are generated. But if you could actually produce such a
case, I would believe in magic!
> >if the non-water
> >emitting end of the pipe about thirty metres away is found to be simply
> >open and unconnected to any supply of water, the pipe unbroken along the
> >way, unable to hold much water itself, yet going on for months gushing
> >water and stopping gushing, dripping and not dripping. By magic? And you
> >are imagining in this possible world, that someone might have a
> >predictive model?
>
> Sure. You assert magic,
I don't really "assert magic".
> I assert some process we don't yet know about.
> Perhaps it is non-natural, but even non-natural can be predictable.
> But we are going to far afield, re-phrase your question.
>
There is no problem about there being unknown non random. That is what
science is for, to make it known!
I don't understand the idea of non-natural being predictable, frankly.
And the predictable I am interested in is not "lucky guessing"
--
dorayme
Patricia Aldoraz
> > <8167215c-bde0-4b5c-aa31-3e04bbd74...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
*What* would give this series,?
About understanding dorayme's notation, perhaps this will help you:
In a series of numbers there is an *order* that is quite distinct from
the particular residents of the places in the order.
Thus:
_ _ _ _ _ ...
has places yet to be filled, the dots means there are further places
without end.
Each dash represents a unique place. Take the first dash, it is in the
first place in the series or sequence. For that place, n=1. For the
second dash, n=2 and so it goes on.
We could fill these spots with anything at all:
* $ # @ %
would be one way.
When n=3, the thing in the 3rd spot in the series is @
...
> > Each of these formulae generate a different series, but all of them
> > start with 1.
>
> The outcome is not random and the generation of the outcome is
> calculable and repeatable.
>
You are confusing what is being said to be random. There is nothing
random about an engine programmed to follow a formula. No one has
suggested this. Random comes into the situation when there is no
program that is generating the series or at least not a program that
gives us a grip on how it will spit numbers out.
Patricia Aldoraz
>
> Actually, your constant reinterpretation of dorayme is what you expect
> me to accept. I cannot.
Oh don't be like that! Be a sport! Please accept what I say! I do not
reinterpret dorayme. I *explain* his teachings to selected Google
Groupers. You should feel honoured.
> > dorayme was asked to say what random is. He said, in effect, that at
> > the heart of it was the idea that reason had nothing to grip on to
> > judge one outcome from another outcome. You did not understand this.
>
> You do not know how to determine randomness. You are simply innumerate.
>
Surely not *simply*? You are hurting my feelings.
> > The idea of random in all situations, including the idea of a random
> > series of numbers can be derived from this simple idea.
>
> What idea? You have nothing but vapor!
>
The idea of dorayme when he answered a question put to him. You have
forgotten it? It is the idea we have been discussing and which you
have seemed to mock and oppose and misunderstand on a daily basis, the
idea that the idea of randomness can be understood in terms of there
being nothing to go on to determine an outcome.
>
> >>> dorayme is describing a particular example of
> >>> numbers coming up on a screen and has said various true things about
> >>> it and you are complaining you cannot find some authority figure here
> >>> that has asserted this example? Or asserted something like dorayme has
> >>> asserted.
> >> You are blithering.
>
> > You mean, you do not understand these simple sentences.
>
> See my response to dorayme later in this group. I am done dealing with
> you, and he should be too unless he is determined to have this whole
> theme muddled between the two of you.
>
He seems happy to leave me to deal with selected crazies, most of whom
are Google Groupers. I don't get paid for this you know and while he
has not said in so many words how much he appreciates my efforts, he
has not said anything against it.
> >>> It is a simple demonstration of the idea of a human being being in the
> >>> presence of random events, one after the other. It is an illustration
> >>> of what dorayme started off with in the first place, namely that the
> >>> essential guts of the concept of randomness is to be found in there
> >>> not being anything to judge an outcome on, one way or another.
>
> >> What was
> >> proposed was that not knowing how an outcome was contrived, calculated,
> >> or made-up was key.
>
> > It was proposed that talk of random is appropriate in situations where
> > there is nothing to judge one outcome from another, sometimes some
> > uses allow there simply to be ignorance, other uses have been conceded
> > to be deeper and include how the world has nothing that could ever be
> > used to decide the issue.
>
> OK, the deeper, undecidable part is agreeable, but I thought we were
> also addressing the nature of random.
>
There is no nature of random beyond what dorayme teaches. It is simply
about there being nothing from which to reason to beyond 50% chance.
If a series of numbers is random, this means that nothing in the world
or in the preceding numbers can help any being at all determine
whether the next number will be 43 or some other number. In the screen
experiment we have been considering, in the absence of any knowledge,
43 has as much chance of coming up in sixth place as any other number
we might contemplate.
But being like I am so innumerate, I guess you can't believe me.
> While it is true (and I think we agree) that few mathematicians would
> presume a process is completely random, or as the outcome of caluclating
> PI or other nonalgebraic cases (transcendentals), we can still measure
> whether an outcome is random.
This is a simple error if you take seriously the idea of having no
knowledge of the complexity of the generating engine.
> We need not know whether the universe, for
> example, is actually deterministic or not: we need not know what the
> fundamental mechanism is for causing random outcomes.
>
You seem to have learned nothing from dorayme's teachings. It is *a
conceptual mistake* to suppose that a random event can be caused to
happen. That is the fundamental nature of random, the absence of
intelligible cause.
> Yet so far we have not found how radiation from decay can be ordered.
>
> >> I wrote that the series of output/outcome can be
> >> judged to be random or not, and it does not matter if one understands or
> >> knows how the output/outcome was determined.
>
> > This is a confusion. If one knows how the generator is generating the
> > numbers, one ipso facto has a basis on which to rule against random.
>
> I am not certain that is true. See PI. Nonalgebraic computation. We
> don't have enough cases of such to know very much at all yet.
>
> So let you and I cease on an agreeable note. Nothing else you wrote
> clarifies dorayme's posit. I'll work with him now.
Best of luck in this.
dorayme
<7fda783c-21d0-4b82...@y10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Patricia Aldoraz <patricia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 12:07 am, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, your constant reinterpretation of dorayme is what you expect
> > me to accept. I cannot.
>
> Oh don't be like that! Be a sport! Please accept what I say! I do not
> reinterpret dorayme. I *explain* his teachings to selected Google
> Groupers. You should feel honoured.
>
> > > dorayme was asked to say what random is. He said, in effect, that at
> > > the heart of it was the idea that reason had nothing to grip on to
> > > judge one outcome from another outcome. You did not understand this.
> >
> > You do not know how to determine randomness. You are simply innumerate.
> >
>
> Surely not *simply*? You are hurting my feelings.
Tell your interlocuter to solve
<http://dorayme.890m.com/binHassad/desert.html>
if he is so numerate. Expect him to misunderstand everything possible
about this delicious puzzle. I know that you, Patricia, solved it ages
ago in another connection. This guy sounds very confused to me!
--
dorayme
John Stafford
> On Jul 27, 12:07 am, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> The idea of dorayme when he answered a question put to him. You have
> forgotten it? It is the idea we have been discussing and which you
> have seemed to mock and oppose and misunderstand on a daily basis, the
> idea that the idea of randomness can be understood in terms of there
> being nothing to go on to determine an outcome.
Nonsense. Just because you cannot find the method that produces a series
of numbers (for example) does not make the outcome random. Random can be
tested for such by simple statistics.
There could be a generative method that is simply not within your
ability to find, or perhaps no person can find it. Random is about
outcomes. The apparent purposelessness of the generating method is only
appearance. Once again, outcomes can be tested.
> There is no nature of random beyond what dorayme teaches. It is simply
> about there being nothing from which to reason to beyond 50% chance.
dorayme is an idiot if he thinks he's got an answer better than the best
minds that have worked with randomness for thousands of years. He's
verbose, bullshitting, full of himself. He and you give a bad name to
philosophy. You are amateurs who think that bullshit piled higher and
deeper is wiser.
And now you have a number and it is 50%. How did you come by that? Knock
off the silliness. You are simply bullshitting.
> If a series of numbers is random, this means that nothing in the world
> or in the preceding numbers can help any being at all determine
> whether the next number will be 43 or some other number. In the screen
> experiment we have been considering, in the absence of any knowledge,
> 43 has as much chance of coming up in sixth place as any other number
> we might contemplate.
>
> But being like I am so innumerate, I guess you can't believe me.
>
>> While it is true (and I think we agree) that few mathematicians would
>> presume a process is completely random, or as the outcome of caluclating
>> PI or other nonalgebraic cases (transcendentals), we can still measure
>> whether an outcome is random.
>
> This is a simple error if you take seriously the idea of having no
> knowledge of the complexity of the generating engine.
You might have no knowledge of it, but someone else could. You see, in
all your cases you _presume_ random but clearly have no way to test to
find whether a sequence is likely random. You avoid knowledge and insert
impressionistic bullshit in its place.
Patricia Aldoraz
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 12:07 am, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> > The idea of dorayme when he answered a question put to him. You have
> > forgotten it? It is the idea we have been discussing and which you
> > have seemed to mock and oppose and misunderstand on a daily basis, the
> > idea that the idea of randomness can be understood in terms of there
> > being nothing to go on to determine an outcome.
>
> Nonsense. Just because you cannot find the method that produces a series
> of numbers (for example) does not make the outcome random.
Nope, he never said or meant this. You misunderstand. It has been
explained to you so many times now.
> Random can be
> tested for such by simple statistics.
>
No it can't, not unless you make background assumptions about the
world that bias the whole enterprise. It has been explained to you
many times.
> There could be a generative method that is simply not within your
> ability to find, or perhaps no person can find it. Random is about
> outcomes.
Nope. Random is about their being no engine that follows a rule in its
very mechanism or lawful action. Mere numbers and events are blind to
law, are blind to reason. That is what the Gambler's Fallacy is all
about. Read the thread Robot Consciousness for more details.
> The apparent purposelessness of the generating method is only
> appearance.
Why say "is" when it might also not be at all? It might be without
reason, pure luck.
> Once again, outcomes can be tested.
>
Not in the context of a set of numbers on a screen coming from a
machine the complexity of which which you have *no idea at all*. You
cannot get this from the numbers alone because the numbers seen so far
might not 'represent' the numbers in the long run.
> > There is no nature of random beyond what dorayme teaches. It is simply
> > about there being nothing from which to reason to beyond 50% chance.
>
> dorayme is an idiot if he thinks he's got an answer better than the best
> minds that have worked with randomness for thousands of years. He's
> verbose, bullshitting, full of himself. He and you give a bad name to
> philosophy. You are amateurs who think that bullshit piled higher and
> deeper is wiser.
>
In that case, how come you are making no progress on setting us
straight? Are you suggesting that we are unreasonable people? Please
don't be like that. It hurts my feelings.
> And now you have a number and it is 50%. How did you come by that? Knock
> off the silliness. You are simply bullshitting.
>
I was trying to abbreviate. It doesn't seem to matter with you. Long
explanations do no better.
But I am kind and compassionate and will add this explanation:
You are looking at the screen we started with and 1 2 3 4 5 come up.
You are told truly that either 43 or 97 will come up next. Never mind
why! It is just a hypothesis for a thought experiment. Your guess that
it will be 43 is no more probable on this hypothesis than a guess for
97. In respect to this hypothesis, each is 50% likely.
We can generalise further but this will only give you even more ways
to misunderstand things.
>
> > If a series of numbers is random, this means that nothing in the world
> > or in the preceding numbers can help any being at all determine
> > whether the next number will be 43 or some other number. In the screen
> > experiment we have been considering, in the absence of any knowledge,
> > 43 has as much chance of coming up in sixth place as any other number
> > we might contemplate.
>
> > But being like I am so innumerate, I guess you can't believe me.
>
> >> While it is true (and I think we agree) that few mathematicians would
> >> presume a process is completely random, or as the outcome of caluclating
> >> PI or other nonalgebraic cases (transcendentals), we can still measure
> >> whether an outcome is random.
>
> > This is a simple error if you take seriously the idea of having no
> > knowledge of the complexity of the generating engine.
>
> You might have no knowledge of it, but someone else could. You see, in
> all your cases you _presume_ random but clearly have no way to test to
> find whether a sequence is likely random. You avoid knowledge and insert
> impressionistic bullshit in its place.
It is a completely uninteresting question whether something is in fact
random or not. If this is what you wish to study, go do maths or
science. dorayme is answering the the most general of questions (as
befits this usenet group's purpose, Philosophy)
John Stafford
> On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> Random can be
>> tested for such by simple statistics.
>>
> No it can't, not unless you make background assumptions about the
> world that bias the whole enterprise. It has been explained to you
> many times.
Well, publish your assertions with considerate rationalizations. Let us
see how it goes for you. Hint: it's so shallow that you might get a
scholarship to a basket weaving school.
>> There could be a generative method that is simply not within your
>> ability to find, or perhaps no person can find it. Random is about
>> outcomes.
>
> Nope. Random is about their being no engine that follows a rule in its
> very mechanism or lawful action. Mere numbers and events are blind to
> law, are blind to reason. That is what the Gambler's Fallacy is all
> about. Read the thread Robot Consciousness for more details.
You bring up the Gamblers Fallacy very often, and not in a useful way so
I wonder if you even understand it! It is deeper than that. But back to
the fundamental error of your way: it is not necessary to find the
source of the alleged random signal in order to find whether the output
is random. Oh, and if it is random, there is no certainty that it will
remain random if it is an ongoing process.
Further, you don't know if there is no 'engine', and you really do not
know enough about measuring outcomes to find random. You must know about
hidden variables that can be found, usually in long chains.
>> The apparent purposelessness of the generating method is only
>> appearance.
>
> Why say "is" when it might also not be at all? It might be without
> reason, pure luck.
That makes no sense. Can you imagine a process which produces random
output which is useful? Consider simulations.
>> Once again, outcomes can be tested.
>>
>
> Not in the context of a set of numbers on a screen coming from a
> machine the complexity of which which you have *no idea at all*. You
> cannot get this from the numbers alone because the numbers seen so far
> might not 'represent' the numbers in the long run.
You just interjected something you have not mentioned before, and let me
take it a step further and suggest that in, for example, cellular
automata you can know the rules for creating output but in some cases
you cannot know whether the outcome is truly random or not because there
is not enough time in the universe to carry it all out. Oh, and the
rules are stone simple.
You might enjoy looking into that, and stochastic processes, markov
chains in particular, IOW probability theory.
>>> There is no nature of random beyond what dorayme teaches. It is simply
>>> about there being nothing from which to reason to beyond 50% chance.
>> dorayme is an idiot if he thinks he's got an answer better than the best
>> minds that have worked with randomness for thousands of years. He's
>> verbose, bullshitting, full of himself. He and you give a bad name to
>> philosophy. You are amateurs who think that bullshit piled higher and
>> deeper is wiser.
>>
> In that case, how come you are making no progress on setting us
> straight? Are you suggesting that we are unreasonable people? Please
> don't be like that. It hurts my feelings.
I can't set you straight because you appear to be invested in finding
facts through impressionistic writing rather than through study and
experience.
>> And now you have a number and it is 50%. How did you come by that? Knock
>> off the silliness. You are simply bullshitting.
>>
>
> I was trying to abbreviate. It doesn't seem to matter with you. Long
> explanations do no better.
Indeed. In some cases simple is much better than dithering. Verbosity
does not often help.
>
> But I am kind and compassionate and will add this explanation:
>
> You are looking at the screen we started with and 1 2 3 4 5 come up.
> You are told truly that either 43 or 97 will come up next. Never mind
> why! It is just a hypothesis for a thought experiment. Your guess that
> it will be 43 is no more probable on this hypothesis than a guess for
> 97. In respect to this hypothesis, each is 50% likely.
Straw man. You already know something of the engine. It's a disguised
coin flip event, or the equivalent. And if the number sequence stops
with either 1 2 3 4 5 43 or 1 2 3 4 5 97, then it is probably not
random. The deviation is much to great. Besides, it's an inadequate
sequence to consider.
> We can generalise further but this will only give you even more ways
> to misunderstand things.
>>> knowledge of the complexity of the generating engine.
>> You might have no knowledge of it, but someone else could. You see, in
>> all your cases you _presume_ random but clearly have no way to test to
>> find whether a sequence is likely random. You avoid knowledge and insert
>> impressionistic bullshit in its place.
>
> It is a completely uninteresting question whether something is in fact
> random or not. If this is what you wish to study, go do maths or
> science. dorayme is answering the the most general of questions (as
> befits this usenet group's purpose, Philosophy)
Philosophers are at risk when they think certain subjects yield more
when the philosophers know less, especially when it concerns things as
well understood as stochastic processes.
Philosophy is not just a game of bullshit impressionism, despite your
effort to make it so.
Don Stockbauer
How did the constipated computer solve its problem?
It worked it out with its slide rule!
Hah!
Converted old joke
1955
Errol
You seem to have missed Zinnic's post that Patricia is another
pseudonym that dorayme uses to confuse the issues, with regard to
whoever he is engaging in debate.
John Stafford
IOW, a sock puppet. When I get to work I will look at the headers. They
cannot always tell us enough.
John Stafford
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> in
<doraymeRidThis-498...@news.albasani.net> wrote:
>> In article <A7OdnX9nw534A_XX...@giganews.com>,
>> "Anthony Buckland" <anthonybuc...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Here's an excerpt from Wolfram MathWorld's relevant article:
>>>
>>> A random number is a number chosen as if by chance
>>>>
>>>> No fault of yours, Anthony, but in this atrocious bit of prose and
>>>> "explanation" you quote, the first thing that someone sensible would
>>>> avoid is throwing in the phrase "as if by chance" in explaining random
>>>> numbers at this stage!
Balderdash! That IS the definition of random! What else could it be?
Tim McGaughy
Probably won't help to look at the headers. 'Patricia' seems to be
posting through google.
Patricia Aldoraz
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
> You bring up the Gamblers Fallacy very often, and not in a useful way so
> I wonder if you even understand it! It is deeper than that.
You of course declining to explain how deep it is. There is nothing
deep about it in one sense, it is simply that, against the evidence,
there is just the same chance of getting a heads on the twenty
millionth toss as on the first toss. The way the tosses have panned
out previously is irrelevant. The Gambler';s Fallacy is to suppose the
previous is relevant. You show no understanding of this. And at every
stage a misunderstanding of it.
> it is not necessary to find the
> source of the alleged random signal in order to find whether the output
> is random.
There is no such thing as a random output in the sense hat you can
inspect *just the output itself* to tell. You have shown time and
time again that any particular set of numbers is consistent with
infinite numbers of patterns, so it cannot be *the numbers alone* that
determine this question. You have never cottoned on to this idea and
it is looking increasingly that you never will. It is a powerful
argument.It is staring you in the face and you cannot grok it. Want me
to repeat it?
Any particular set of numbers is consistent with infinite numbers of
patterns, so it cannot be *any set of finite numbers alone* that
determine if the generator is working to a plan or not.
...
>
> >> Once again, outcomes can be tested.
>
> > Not in the context of a set of numbers on a screen coming from a
> > machine the complexity of which which you have *no idea at all*. You
> > cannot get this from the numbers alone because the numbers seen so far
> > might not 'represent' the numbers in the long run.
>
> You just interjected something you have not mentioned before, ...
It is part of the very meaning and fabric of what dorayme said from
the very beginning. You assume that your misunderstandings govern what
was said and meant.
>
> You might enjoy looking into that, and stochastic processes, markov
> chains in particular, IOW probability theory.
>
...
>
> > You are looking at the screen we started with and 1 2 3 4 5 come up.
> > You are told truly that either 43 or 97 will come up next. Never mind
> > why! It is just a hypothesis for a thought experiment. Your guess that
> > it will be 43 is no more probable on this hypothesis than a guess for
> > 97. In respect to this hypothesis, each is 50% likely.
>
> Straw man.
>
Straw man for what argument? It is silly to simply blurt out these
debating phrases that you might have read in a book or dictionary
somewhere. You need to understand what they mean and show you do.
>You already know something of the engine. It's a disguised
> coin flip event, or the equivalent.
This pretty well conclusively shows you have no clue at all about the
case. It was repeatedly explained to you that the condition of the
case is that the watcher has no knowledge or any idea at all of the
generator, how complex it is or how it is made.
> And if the number sequence stops
> with either 1 2 3 4 5 43 or 1 2 3 4 5 97, then it is probably not
> random. The deviation is much to great. Besides, it's an inadequate
> sequence to consider.
>
It has been explained to you over and over again that if you have no
idea how complex the generator is, you have nothing to hang your
judgement that 1 2 3 4 5 is a sign that the formula a(n)=n is the one
that best describes this generator's workings. You have the simple
minded idea that 1 2 3 4 5 is somehow priviliged to continue as 6 7
8 ... and it is just not so for the reasons given.
Perhaps these ideas are very difficult, they do not seems so to me,
but perhaps that is because I am familiar with them from the writings
of dorayme. And perhaps the dorayme is familiar with them from the
writings of other giants? Don't worry, John. Philosophy does not quite
seem to be your natural game.
Patricia Aldoraz
Anything that Zinnic says, and you for that matter, is probably best
missed! You two are perfect examples of people who have such little
feel for the subject of Philosophy that you find comfort and refuge in
all this personal nonsense.
If you had something to say about the actual arguments on the concept
of random, say them. You will seem a big fool, but a lesser fool than
your obsession with personal crap like this.
Errol
wrote:
.
>
> Anything that Zinnic says, and you for that matter, is probably best
> missed! You two are perfect examples of people who have such little
> feel for the subject of Philosophy that you find comfort and refuge in
> all this personal nonsense.
>
> If you had something to say about the actual arguments on the concept
> of random, say them. You will seem a big fool, but a lesser fool than
> your obsession with personal crap like this
Personal attacks from the sock puppet again! LOL
Patricia Aldoraz
Keep laughing. When you stop, consider being a lesser fool than you
already are and discuss actual philosophical matters.
John Stafford
> On Jul 27, 10:24 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <nowh...@nowhere.nl> wrote:
>
>> You bring up the Gamblers Fallacy very often, and not in a useful way so
>> I wonder if you even understand it! It is deeper than that.
>
> You of course declining to explain how deep it is. There is nothing
> deep about it in one sense, it is simply that, against the evidence,
> there is just the same chance of getting a heads on the twenty
> millionth toss as on the first toss. The way the tosses have panned
> out previously is irrelevant. The Gambler';s Fallacy is to suppose the
> previous is relevant. You show no understanding of this. And at every
> stage a misunderstanding of it.
Do you have a reading problem? Read what I wrote! Or do you just blunder
your way about with extreme prejudice blinding you? I know the fallacy,
and mastered the comprehension of it and others forty damned years ago.
My dear, you have an issue. Get well.
>> it is not necessary to find the
>> source of the alleged random signal in order to find whether the output
>> is random.
>
> There is no such thing as a random output in the sense hat you can
> inspect *just the output itself* to tell.
Incorrect. Absolutely incorrect. We are concerned with the output
itself, and not the source by very definition. Do you understand what
random means?
> Any particular set of numbers is consistent with infinite numbers of
> patterns, so it cannot be *any set of finite numbers alone* that
> determine if the generator is working to a plan or not.
If a sequence of numbers/letters has a pattern, then it is not likely
random, and your sloppy use of infinity indicates that you do not
understand the nature of the problem.
[... snip more nonsense...]
>>> You are looking at the screen we started with and 1 2 3 4 5 come up.
>>> You are told truly that either 43 or 97 will come up next. Never mind
>>> why! It is just a hypothesis for a thought experiment. Your guess that
>>> it will be 43 is no more probable on this hypothesis than a guess for
>>> 97. In respect to this hypothesis, each is 50% likely.
>> Straw man.
>
>
> Straw man for what argument? It is silly to simply blurt out these
> debating phrases that you might have read in a book or dictionary
> somewhere. You need to understand what they mean and show you do.
That's the second or third time you pulled this "something read from a
book". I read about fifty books a year on my own time and more for the
regular work. I cannot HELP but have read something from a book.
Regardless, I am an original thinker; quite creative.
Tis you who pull this Gambler's Fallacy thing out of your ass over and
over to apply it falsely.
>> You already know something of the engine. It's a disguised
>> coin flip event, or the equivalent.
>
> This pretty well conclusively shows you have no clue at all about the
> case. It was repeatedly explained to you that the condition of the
> case is that the watcher has no knowledge or any idea at all of the
> generator, how complex it is or how it is made.
You stated, "You are told that either 43 or 97 will come up next". See
that? It is one or the other of two possibilities. That might as well be
a coin with the arbitrary "43" as one side, and "97" as the other side.
That's a coin flip.
How freaking clear can I make it?
>
>> And if the number sequence stops
>> with either 1 2 3 4 5 43 or 1 2 3 4 5 97, then it is probably not
>> random. The deviation is much to great. Besides, it's an inadequate
>> sequence to consider.
>>
>
> It has been explained to you over and over again that if you have no
> idea how complex the generator is, you have nothing to hang your
> judgement that 1 2 3 4 5 is a sign that the formula a(n)=n is the one
> that best describes this generator's workings. You have the simple
> minded idea that 1 2 3 4 5 is somehow priviliged to continue as 6 7
> 8 ... and it is just not so for the reasons given.
Absolutely incorrect. Have you read anything I wrote? You constantly
accuse in order to demand what you wish I were thinking, but you are
wrong. You do not understand what a random sequence is.
Besides, in an earlier post I constructed the generator for a sequence
that dorayme proposed. I also put his assertion into a proper
expression. I know what I am doing. You do not, and you really should
examine your motive for continuing your tactic of deceit.
> Perhaps these ideas are very difficult, they do not seems so to me,
> but perhaps that is because I am familiar with them from the writings
> of dorayme. And perhaps the dorayme is familiar with them from the
> writings of other giants? Don't worry, John. Philosophy does not quite
> seem to be your natural game.
There you go - extreme prejudice. It is time for you to wake up. You
know nothing about me. I'll save you from the shock. This time.