On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 Chris de Morsella <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
