science = determinism?
seebs at plethora.net
Mon Nov 29 17:10:18 EST 1999
In article <81rq6k$7bo$1 at pyrite.mv.net>, Bill Todd <billtodd at foo.mv.com> wrote:
>I don't believe that the result of the toss of a two-headed coin is properly
>characterized as 'random' simply because there is a small but finite
>probability that the coin will wind up on its edge.
Hmm. I would call it random, because we have no plausible way to predict it
reliably. Indeed, a friend of mine has seen the edge thing happen.
But it's still unpredictable, thus, random. You may be able to make a good
*guess*, but that's not a full-blown prediction.
>2 a : relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite
>probability of occurrence <random processes> b : being or relating to a set
>or to an element of a set each of whose elements has equal probability of
>occurrence <a random sample>; also : characterized by procedures designed to
>obtain such sets or elements <random sampling>
>The first definition (1a) is pretty much the one I've been suggesting. 2a
>seems to be the one others have been suggesting. 2b is the one I first
>suggested, without thinking about it in sufficient depth.
Oh, I see.
Okay, as I said in another post, note that different subfields use things
differently. There's such a thing as a "test for randomness", and one of the
criteria is that each result be equally probable. That's a different "kind"
Mea culpa; I forgot about that since I almost never use it. I *HATE*
statistics, mostly because I made the mistake of taking a non-honors course
in it, where they refused to explain where all the weird equations come from.
(I can't stand unexplained formulae.)
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