In article <81pden$h80$1 at pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd at foo.mv.com> wrote:
>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.
This doesn't even make sense except, perhaps, in the case of
unique events. If you can imagine an event occuring repeatedly, then
the probability of the various outcomes of the event is a meaningful
quantity. You may not be able to evaluate it, since you can't carry
out an infinite number of experiments, but it's meaningful.
I'd suggest some elementary text on probability and statistics,
these concepts are quite accessible.
No offense, but you're coming across like a slightly more
coherent than usual Usenet Loon.