| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Comments:
<0> usually seed is time
<1> Yeah, but WHY isn't it really random, Lateralus?
<2> thanks, XboK
<1> Haha rdragon
<2> lol
<3> Because effect is produced by cause.
<2> Lateralus - stop trolling
<2> you're acting like an idiot on purpose now
<1> Well, he's an objectivist
<0> it is random because no one really know what is the exec time the random number is generated... imho
<2> "what does that mean?"
<1> It's not random, xbok
<0> ok
<3> It "seems' random because it's functionally random.
<0> just throwing some thought
<3> But is it random? No.
<2> it's not random at all
<1> Okay
<1> Let me try for a minute
<1> Just in case he's not drunk
<1> Lateralus
<1> Are you a ****ing idiot
<0> it seems random becuase the exec time the number is generated is very variable
<2> what does that mean?
<3> No.
<1> Okay, then answer this question
<1> Why is "rand" not considered "random", but rather "pseudorandom"
<3> Because it's functionally random and not truly random.
<1> Okay, now try again, and make it mean something in english
<1> If you don't know what rand does, or how it works, it's okay to ask
<1> But it's not okay to pretend you do know
<1> Because that would be what a ****ing idiot would do
<3> Er, because it produces a number that seems random for the purposes of whatever we'd use as random, but it isn't *really* random because things cause it to produce that value.
<2> Lateralus - explain the implementation
<1> Shh
<1> Lateralus, even a real random number generator, that took like air samples or static input or something
<1> Would still be caused to produce a value
<3> Yep.
<1> That doesn't explain why rand is considered only "pseudorandom"
<3> Those things still have causes.
<1> So explain that part; why is it considered only pseudorandom?
<3> What you seed it with can be predicted.
<1> Even if it couldn't be, it's still pseudorandom
<1> In fact, so are the air samples and such
<1> Rand is pseudorandom because its output is perfectly determinable from its input
<1> Does that make sense?
<2> no, he doesn't have a damn clue
<1> A determinist thinks that the state of the universe at any point, including in the future, is perfectly determinable from prior states
<1> That what you do in 40 years, or whether you're alive, or how much money is in your bank account at X bank, is wholly and only dependent on prior states
<3> Ahhh, gotcha. No, no. It's prior states *determine* other states.
<2> not other. future
<1> Don't say no no, you have no clue what I'm saying
<3> I do.
<2> or present, rather
<0> rdragon ... how is psudorandon number is generated if seed is not time?
<1> That doesn't matter, xbok
<0> ... i really want to know...
<2> the exact same way it's determined if the seed is time
<1> ah
<1> Lateralus
<1> So determinism isn't about causes having effects
<2> XboK - usually using a LCG random number generator
<2> like:
<1> Every cause by definition has an effect
<1> But not everything is a cause, except to a determinist
<3> It's not about causes having *predictable* effects.
<1> And not everything is necessarily an effect, except to a determinist
<0> i'll go read about LCG
<1> A nondeterminist like me will happily admit that many causes have predictable effects.
<2> int random(){ static int seed = time(); seed += 683873; seed *= 572364; return seed; }
<3> Heh, so if something happens, nothing caused it, to a non-determinist?
<1> The difference in determinism is that no state of the physical world can be found that isn't entirely a sum of its inputs
<1> No, nondeterminism is just the belief that the universe is not necessarily entirely deterministic
<1> Like I said, christians would usually be nondeterminists
<2> Lateralus - a deteminist believes everything is perfectly and precisely able to be predicted and any cause and effect situation can be precisely and perfectly explained completely
<1> Personally, I'd say that the universe has no quantifiable inputs
<1> There's never a seed
<2> the universe IS the seed
<1> Yeah, but that's cheating
<1> Because what was the seed for the universe
<3> Dammit, that's ridiculous. "The universe *is* the seed?"
<2> the previous state of the universe
<1> And there you go
<2> (I also believe time is discrete)
<1> There's never a seed
<1> Because every point at which you'd say "that's the first seed", I'd say what caused it
<2> I wouldn't say there is a first seed
<1> Well, that's an interesting position, then
<2> the universe always was, and always will be
<3> Personally, I think effect is *always* produced by cause, but it's circular. Cause always produces an effect to be investigated, etc.
<1> So you have like an infinite nonrepeating decimal number
<2> no, not infinite
<1> No, infinite works for you
<1> Because each digit is still determinable
<2> well, ok ;)
<3> Heh, sort of.
<1> And the "seeds" are totally separate
<1> But I still say it's BS
<0> chicken and egg?
<1> Sorta, yeah
<2> no chickens, no eggs
<0> should be chiken first
<1> Heh
<0> because i love chiken
<0> my love for egg is less
<1> Heh
<3> XboK: What's the meaning of this Koan? There are no contradictions. If something is messed up in your reasoning, you correct it.
<2> lol
<2> koan ?
<3> XboK: It seems like a paradox, but is it?
<1> Koan's an op in #politics
<3> rdragon: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=koan
<0> i'll wiki on koan
<1> It seems like Koan's been in the wine cellar again
<1> Ah
<1> Well, it's just BS.
<1> Of course there are contradictions.
<2> Is a koan a kind of riddle, puzzle, conundrum, or enigma?
<2> No. The English language has no synonym for koan.
<1> If something is messed up in your reasoning, it's messed up.
<3> JBlitzen: Exactly.
<1> Whether you correct it or not, there is a point at which it is messed up.
<1> And contradiction is one word for certain types of those points
<0> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_egg_and_the_chicken_problem
<2> a nice breakfast argument
<0> if universe is the seed to itself .... then which one is first ... the universe or the universe seed?
<2> the universe seed
<2> because the universe seed is the state of the universe immediately preceeding it's current state
<0> I' easily confused ... then what is the seed to universe seed?
<2> the universe seed's seed
<0> ... yet another universe seed
<2> indeed
<2> 'night
<1> night
<4> Can someone answer a newbie question???
<4> quess not...
<5> Ask
<6> Did anyone answerd? My net ****s...
<5> I see only the best and brightest visit.
<0> Wraith
<0> what is the question
<0> ooh he is gone already
<7> good morning
<8> moin
<9> aloha
<10> why is it, that "const int l = 1024; char buffer[l];" does work, if l is a local variable but not if l is a const-cl***-member?
<11> suriel: 'const' is implicitely static at namespace scope. It's not implicitely static at cl*** scope.
<11> It needs to be static to count as a compile-time constant.
<11> I.e. static const int l = 1024 at cl*** scope should work.
<11> (that needs to be in the cl*** definition)
<12> Nothing gets my morning started like a discussion of implicit statics.
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
hidebehind dewez
ubuntu montar hdd
#linux
xml_load_file php
php sql
#mirc
MythStreamTV Myth 0.19
ubuntu GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap is missing
hello mr. gates i'll be your server
load from dev_null db2
|
|