On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Chris de Morsella <cdemorse...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > A stochastic system may be reducible to being modeled by some set of > random variation > Yes. > >but In reality it is often a whole lot more subtle than that and the > "randomness" is not random > If it's not random then it happened for a reason, and things happen in a computer for a reason too. *>>Ask yourself this question, why weren't all those fantastically complex transient >> dynamic branches in a neural network by the name of Grandmaster Gary >> Kasparov able to beat a 16 year old computer running a 16 year old chess >> program?* >> > ** > > > not sure how this has bearing > Is that true, are you really not sure how that has any bearing? I am sure. > The super computer that finally beat him had a massive number crunching > ability > At the time it may have been a supercomputer but that was 16 years ago and the computer you're reading this E mail message on right now is almost certainly more powerful than the computer that beat the best human chess player in the world. And chess programs have gotten a lot better too. So all that spaghetti and complexity at the cellular level that you were rhapsodizing about didn't work as well as an antique computer running a ancient chess program. John K Clark - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.