Re: Gasket analogy

From: glenn morton (mortongr@flash.net)
Date: Thu Apr 06 2000 - 14:38:59 EDT

  • Next message: glenn morton: "Re: Gasket analogy and intelligent agents"

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "John Burgeson" <burgy@compuserve.com>
    To: "glenn morton" <mortongr@flash.net>
    Cc: "ASA LISTSERV" <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 4:22 PM
    Subject: Re: Gasket analogy

    > Glenn wrote:
    >
    > >>Not so, Burgy. The gasket always appears. There is absolutely no chance
    > the
    > gasket won't appear--none whatsoever.>>
    >
    > I have a real difficulty with that answer, Glenn.

    Why? It is the rules that hold chance in control. Chance operates in part of
    the algorithm but the rules of motion don't change. Download the program
    and run it over and over--see if you can ever get even a slight variation
    tothe gasket.

    >
    > For instance, I know that in playing bridge, there is "absolutely no
    > chance"
    > (in a practical sense) that each player will be dealt a one suite hand.
    Yet
    > -- there
    > is a remore chance of that happening.

    The game of bridge is not in anyway analogous to the system I am describing.

    >
    > Likewise with the gasket case. Or any probablistic situation. It is just
    > possible that I can begin to toss this quarter I now hold and have it come
    > up tails 10,000 times without a single head appearing. Not likely,
    > possible. It is
    > also possible it will alternate tails/heads in such a way as to specify
    the
    > value of pi to
    > any desired accuracy.

    While the choice of which rule of motion to follow is random, the outcome
    isn't. A refresher for the program movement:

                                  *1

            M*

    2* 3*

    M is the moving dot, dots 1, 2, and 3 remain stationary.
     REmember that if I roll a 1 with my random number generator, I move 1/2 the
    distance to point 1. If I roll 1 over and over and over, the dot simply
    moves to a place where it is indistinguisable from point 1. but if I then
    roll a 3, the dot moves from 1 to a point halfway between 1 and 3. If I then
    roll a 2, the dot moves halfway from that point to point 2. As you can see,
    even if I start with M outside of the triangle (1,2,3) it eventually is
    always forced to move inside that triangle. There is no rule of motion to
    allow it to escape. It is determined that all points will lie inside the
    triangle. This isn't like a bridge game at all.
    >
    > Interestingly, and I speak here from having done computer simulations as
    > far back as
    > the late 1950s, I think it is not possible, even in principle, to ever
    > observe these rare cases
    > as outputs from a computer simulation. This is because all known random
    > number
    > generators are, at best, pseudo random. I suppose one could rig something
    > up to
    > generate the numbers as results of cosmic rays, or dust mote movements,
    but
    > I think
    > there is no way to do so without random outside input.

    Take the lowest significant digit on the clock register can get you pretty
    close to being random.

    glenn

    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology
    http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm

    Lots of information on creation/evolution



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 19:48:13 EDT