Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Can a computer work anything out?

Reply
Thread Tools

Can a computer work anything out?

 
 
Zinnic
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
On Jul 25, 8:11*pm, Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Jul 26, 6:50*am, Zinnic <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
turtoni
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
On Jul 26, 1:30*am, Zinnic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 8:11*pm, Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 6:50*am, Zinnic <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1TQTDi6gQ4
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
turtoni
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
> 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


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.!
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 11:03*am, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > dorayme wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > > *Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >
> > >> On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
On Jul 26, 7:19*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim Burns
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
dorayme wrote:
[...]
> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
In article <h4i091$m99$(E-Mail Removed)-state.edu>,
Jim Burns <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.
>


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.


> 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.
>


Thanks for going to the trouble, Jim.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Matt Silberstein <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:15:32 +1000, in alt.atheism , dorayme
> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
On Jul 26, 11:23*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article
> > <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > *Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> On Jul 26, 11:03 am, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>> dorayme wrote:
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >>>> *Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 25, 11:32 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

>
> 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
>


*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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
On Jul 27, 12:07*am, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

> > 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Branch can't get to internet, can't ping anything but ethernet at main site. td Cisco 9 04-24-2006 03:29 PM
Can't connect to local machine with anything except IE Other browsers can't connect without password Otis Mukinfus ASP .Net 3 07-08-2005 03:54 AM
Computer wont boot up from anything Saddles Computer Support 14 05-01-2005 02:34 PM
Re: Corrupted CD data - if Isobuster can't recover it, is there anything that can? dadiOH Computer Support 0 10-23-2004 05:32 PM
Cannot get display on computer to display anything Powerbook Computer Support 5 02-26-2004 12:30 AM



Advertisments