science = determinism?
billtodd at foo.mv.com
Sat Nov 27 15:04:53 EST 1999
Mea culpa (see previous amending post) to the several people who responded.
I'm still less than convinced that 'non-deterministic' and 'random' are
synonymous, since the word to me implies a degree of unpredictability beyond
mere uncertainty - e.g., a truly 'random' event to me is one whose
probability cannot be evaluated. If this is indeed *not* the accepted
mathematical definition, then so be it (and thank you for so informing me).
Peter Seebach <seebs at plethora.net> wrote in message
news:nnN%3.237$Sz5.12268 at ptah.visi.com...
> In article <81jmfs$fv2$1 at pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd at foo.mv.com>
> >Am I the only one who believes that 'random' means that the probabilities
> >all possible outcomes are equal?
> No, but that doesn't mean you're right, it just means lots of people don't
> understand "random" very well.
> If you have *NO* other information, you might as well assume that all the
> probabilities are equal. Often, you have other information.
> Copyright 1999, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / seebs at plethora.net
> C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
> Will work for interesting hardware. http://www.plethora.net/~seebs/
> Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!
More information about the Neur-sci