On 2/7/07, Kevin Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My program crashes, prints something about 8192.
My program crashes, prints something about 10001.
My program crashes, prints something about 3721.
I'd wonder if you've seen the movie "Pi" and perhaps taken it too seriously :)
-
This l
Perhaps it does. The concept of "random" that people actually hold and
use (outside of probability) is more about whether something has an
explanation than about anything formal. Consider the following
scenarios:
My program crashes, prints something about 8192.
My program crashes, prints somethin
Pei Wang wrote:
Inconsistency, though annoying, is a major driving force for learning
and creativity.
A system that is always consistent will be very boring.
Pei
That's like saying: "Inaccuracy, though annoying, is a major driving
force for falsification and discovery. A system that is alw
Inconsistency, though annoying, is a major driving force for learning
and creativity.
Along these lines I was reading an old research paper about subjective
notions of randomness a few weeks back (sorry I don't have a reference).
It seems back in the 30's, a radio station sponsored a series
Inconsistency, though annoying, is a major driving force for learning
and creativity.
A system that is always consistent will be very boring.
Pei
On 2/5/07, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For a different view on probabilistic and logical consistency, we can
always turn to Dostoevsky
For a different view on probabilistic and logical consistency, we can
always turn to Dostoevsky, who posited that the essence of being
human is that we can make ourselves believe 2+2=5 if we really want
to '-)
I.e., he saw our potential for **willful inconsistency**, considered
in the
