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?

 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
In article
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> 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.


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
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
On Jul 27, 3:42*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 12:07 am, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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)
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Don Stockbauer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
On Jul 27, 7:24*am, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


How did the constipated computer solve its problem?

It worked it out with its slide rule!

Hah!

Converted old joke

1955
 
Reply With Quote
 
Errol
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2009
On Jul 27, 2:24*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.


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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2009
On Jul 27, 10:24*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2009
On Jul 27, 10:34*pm, Errol <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2:24*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

>
> 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.


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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Errol
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2009
On Jul 28, 4:08*am, Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)>
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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-28-2009
On Jul 28, 6:23*pm, Errol <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jul 28, 4:08*am, Patricia Aldoraz <(E-Mail Removed)>
> 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 ...again! LOL


Keep laughing. When you stop, consider being a lesser fool than you
already are and discuss actual philosophical matters.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-29-2009
On Jul 28, 9:22*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 10:24 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> >>> On Jul 27, 3:42 pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> 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! ...I know the fallacy,
> and mastered the comprehension of it and others forty damned years ago.
>


It has not seemed that way to me.

> My dear, you have an issue. Get well.
>

This sort of thing should be beneath you. Do not be influenced by
quarter-wits like Zinnic and Errol. Come away from among them.

> >> 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.
>


Oy! You have just made me cough my coffee all over this keyboard!


> Tis you who pull this Gambler's Fallacy thing out of your ass over and
> over to apply it falsely.
>


Please do not be crude with me.


> >> 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Patricia Aldoraz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-29-2009
On Jul 28, 11:41*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 7/27/09 9:03 PM, in article
> (E-Mail Removed), "Patricia
>
> Aldoraz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 10:24*pm, John Stafford <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > It is silly to simply blurt out these
> > debating phrases that you might have read in a book or dictionary
> > somewhere.

>
> It is silly to refer to the literature, but...
>
> > [...] *And perhaps the dorayme is familiar with them from the
> > writings of other giants?

>
> ...it is ok for dorayme to do the same.
>
> Enough of you.


Am I so bad to have a chat to across the oceans of this beautiful
world of ours? Surely not!
 
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