Re: [FRIAM] Why true random?
Not sure really what the inputs always used, but I think these Self-org Self-adapt algorithms the SASO engineers were playing with didn't always use random generators to produce the systemic effects they were getting. Obviously all input effects all output in some sort of way, but it was the outcomes that would come from the whole gamete of unspecified inputs that seemed to be the 'phase space profile' they were most interested in. Many of the papers were on how the inputs could seriously 'misbehave' and still not screw up the control schemes, often discussed in terms of 'malicious agent' concepts, of which the real net has plenty real examples! I also found them very receptive to considering not only what a malicious person would think of doing to defeat someone else's operating plan, but also the 'malicious creativity' of natural system emergence as a focus of design contingencies. Phil Henshaw .·´ ¯ `·. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com http://www.synapse9.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 1:19 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why true random? Simulations of stochastic processes also require good RN generators, especially for simulations of large systems with (I hate to use this word) emergent behavioral properties. A bad RN generator will introduce emergent behavior that will be flavored by a bad random sequences. -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 7/20/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cryptographic applications require true randomness. If your cipher used on a pseudo-random number generator, then a cracker discovering your algorithm and key has broken your code. I also have a hunch that genuine randomness is needed for open-ended evolutionary systems. Here, the evol algorithm is in the position of the code cracker, and once the code is cracked, the evol algorithm stops. I had a workshop paper on this in 2004, which has some problems with it. The concept is controversial, to say the least. Cheers On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:24:42AM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote: Why is it important (except intellectually) to have true randomness??? I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days of Aerospace, in the 50's, when we were really doing practical earthshattering things -- like going to the moon -- sans computers!! The RAND corporation, for whom I consulted, published a typed book (size of a Manhattan telephone directory) of random numbers for engineering application. Much entertainment was occasioned when, about three months later, they distributed a list of typos to their original list of random numbers. Today I use homemade random numbers alla time for real problems, specifically the actual response of real flight vehicles in real atmospheric turbulence. Flight tests support analysis, in the sense that what we predict is not obviously incorrect. We have never found it necessary to utilize any more perfectly random random sequences! Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au http://www.hpcoders.com.au FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Why true random?
I would argue the opposite. While I agree with Doug that you need good RNGs (though not necessarily true RNGs) in order to avoid bias, the problem with good pseudo- or true- RNGs is that they have order N^2 convergence for Monte Carlo simulations. Quasi-random number generators on the other hand (such as multiples of an irrational square root, or a Peano tiling) converge in order N. If you can trust the results, faster conergence lets you simulate more. -Roger On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:18:36 -0600, Douglas Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simulations of stochastic processes also require good RN generators, especially for simulations of large systems with (I hate to use this word) emergent behavioral properties. A bad RN generator will introduce emergent behavior that will be flavored by a bad random sequences. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] DISREGARD: math and the mother church
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 06:12:58PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: So, here is my present understanding of the mathematician's argument for the mean value theorem. What I dont understand is why it takes three pages of algebra to get there! I don't know where you get the 3 pages from. My analysis book does it 2 paragraphs of algebra, half a page at most. (That's including all the necessary lemmas and definitions). Let us amagine that ab is a bit of a line. It could be straight, and the argument would still hold, but let us imagine that it is curved curved up, curved down, it does not matter. Let's imagine that is an inverted U, except that it doesnt have to be a straight up and down inverted U. In fact, it can be sitting so that somebody wobbled it so that it is, at the instant of being photographed, standing on one leg, about 30 degrees from the verticle. . What does matter is that the line be continuous ALL THE WAY FROM a to B. No gaps, not steps. Imagine that no matter how small the steps you are taking, you can walk along the points of the line from a to b and not get your feet wet, NOT AT ALL -- if of course your shoe size is small enough. Now draw a line that connects the bottom of the two legs of the inverted U. As we just said, that line will move off to the right, from a through b and beyond, at about a thirty degree angle from the horizontal. Thus the mean slope of the tilted inverted U is 30 degrees, right? Here is what that means, as I understand it. Every point on the tilted inverted U has a slope, the slope of the line that is just tangent to the U at that point. Near point a that slope is VERY positive; near point b, that slope is very negative. Now, imagine you set out to walk along the curve from a to b. If you take tiny enough steps, you MUST step on the point where the slope is the same as the mean slope. That is what the mean value theorem says. But I just got there without any of the algebra usually devoted to that proof. So the question is, what is the VALUE of the algebra. If one can estab lish the truth of such an important MATHEMATICAL theorem in other than mathematical means, what is the value of the maths? What you have given is the handwaving version of the proof. The trouble is that human imagination can easily get us into trouble when dealing with infinities, which is necessarily involved in dealing with the concept of continuity. In the above example, you mention that continuity is important, but say nothing about differentiability. Are you aware that continuous curves that are nowhere differentiable exist? I fact most continuous curves are not differentiable. By most, I mean infinitely more continuous curves are not differentiable than those that are, a concept handled by sets of measure zero. To give an example, consider your interval joined by two line segments so as to form a single kink in the middle at point c: At all points on the interior, except for the c, the slope is either s1 = (f(c)-f(a))/(c-a) or s2=(f(b)-f(c))/(b-c). At c, the slope is undefined. But neither s1 nor s2 = (f(b)-f(a))/(b-1), so the mean value theorem fails. I promise I am not MERELY trying to be a horses ass, here. Nick Handwaving arguments are good for developing intuition. Great for teaching during a lecture, and get the students to study the rigorous proof later. Similarly, they're good for scientific seminars, but not scientific papers. Cheers . Nicholas S. Thompson Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Criminalizing Peace
I received this from Frank Wimberly and think it deserves distribution and reaction. Bush's executive order is appalling and frightening even more so because the media have not adequately reported it or reacted. Perhaps we could apply a RNG to Bush and Cheney? cheers (?) Paul ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed
I am disturbed by the non-sequitur inherent in the Subject and Body of this article: It suggests that the Web inherently *should* make Americans more well informed. 3 points: 1) I agree that these are not particularly important questions in their own right, but they *are* hugely significant indicators of how uninformed the folks who were studied are on this type of details, and I agree with Owen that is scary that anyone ALIVE in the US ... cannot answer these. 2) The internet, in my opinion, is still mainly a reference source... Somewhere between a dictionary or encyclopedia and a newspaper or magazine subscription. If people aren't interested in these kinds of facts, they won't look them up and they won't subscribe (e-mail lists, blogs, podcasts, news/information web sites) to sources that provide them. Like the folks I grew up around whose only reading material was their subscription to GRIT or Nat'l Enquirer. 3) If there is a correlation, perhaps it is a negative one... the ratio of important (by some measure) factoids to the unimportant (by any measure) has plummeted, no? Even TV (with 182 channels) in it's ubiquity has aggravated this. At 5 or 6 PM and 10 PM each night in my youth, *any* television running would be showing news... mediated by a local station such that anyone within earhshot would hear their Gov's name as well as the VP's and some of the other facts in question fairly frequently. Today specialized channels like ESPN, MTV, TBS, HBO, Science, Discovery, even CNN (and all of their competitors/wannabes) mean that you can run your TV night and day and never hear most of these things (even with CNN you won't hear your Gov's name often unless he's a bombast like our own). At the newsstand there are hundreds of magazines where there were once tens. Geeks like us maybe all read Byte and now Wired (haven't had a subscription in a decade myself) and maybe Nature/Science/SciAm and maybe Fashionistas all read Cosmo (or whatever is equivalent) but the competition for eyeballs (and ears) is fierce... and a lot that is being offered up is overly refined (like white sugar, flour, corn-syrup, textured-vegetable-protein, etc.) to do more than satisfy (seduce) the most immediate of appetites. Owen said: I sorta have to agree: Just how IMPORTANT are any of these questions? The five questions: Who is the vice president? Who is your state's governor? Does the US have a trade deficit or surplus? Which party controls the House of Representatives? Is the chief justice of the Supreme Court a liberal, moderate, or conservative? If you were to be able to ask 5 questions that you would LIKE folks to know the answer to, would any of these be on it? I think only one .. the trade deficit. But, man, its scary to know that there's anyone ALIVE in the US who cannot answer these. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Why true random?
Logically is true, perfect randomness possible since it is being generated by a program designed by a human with a purpose - a thought construct? On one level is anything in the universe truly random? Paul Paryski ** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Criminalizing Peace
Somehow the fwd about Bush's exec order didn't work, so I have copied the text below. Paul Paryski While the American public...and the world...was being diverted by news stories of Dubya's colonoscopy scheduled for today, this, his latest executive order, was signed July 17, 2007... However, blogs, blogging comments have been numerous...see a sampling below. Bush Executive Order: Criminalizing the Antiwar Movement By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky July 20, 2007 The Executive Order entitled Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes the US led war. A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq. The Executive Order entitled Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of certain persons who oppose the US led war in Iraq: I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people. In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act. The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to blocking property of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to block the property and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of Certain Persons involved in antiwar activities. It targets those Certain Persons in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration's peace and stability program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians. The Executive Order also targets those Certain Persons who are undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction, or who, again in plain English, are opposed to the confiscation and privatization of Iraq's oil resources, on behalf of the Anglo-American oil giants. The order is also intended for anybody who opposes Bush's program of political reform in Iraq, in other words, who questions the legitimacy of an Iraqi government installed by the occupation forces. Moreover, those persons or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), who provide bona fide humanitarian aid to Iraqi civilians, and who are not approved by the US Military or its lackeys in the US sponsored Iraqi puppet government are also liable to have their financial assets confiscated. The executive order violates the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution. It repeals one of the fundamental tenets of US democracy, which is the right to free expression and dissent. The order has not been the object of discussion in the US Congress. Sofar, it has not been addressed by the US antiwar movement, in terms of a formal statement. Apart from a bland Associated Press wire report, which presents the executive order as an authority to use financial sanctions, there has been no media coverage or commentary of a presidential decision which strikes at the heart of the US Constitution.. Broader implications The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define who are the criminals when in fact they they are the criminals. This latest executive order criminalizes the peace movement. It must be viewed in relation to various pieces of anti-terrorist legislation, the gamut of presidential and national security directives, etc., which are ultimately geared towards repealing constitutional government and installing martial law in the event of a national emergency... Excerpted from: _http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=6377_ (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vaaid=6377) Text of the Executive Order: _http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) Message to the Congress of the United States Regarding International Emergency Economic Powers Act _ht tp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html_ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-4.html)
Re: [FRIAM] DISREGARD: math and the mother church
Russell, Remember, mine was a book for English Majors, Berlinski's Tour of the Calculus. But thou quibblest! Dothn't thou? Why is the algebra necessary at all. Doesnt the mean value theorem fall out of the definition of a mean and the definition of continuity? Full stop. Granting only that the mean falls between (or is one of) the extremes? Nick PS. I apologize for my message garblement. In fact I had NOT sent an incomplete message. So the message saying disregard the message was the only message. This is not a pipe. Nick [Original Message] From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Date: 7/22/2007 7:04:29 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] DISREGARD: math and the mother church On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 06:12:58PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote: So, here is my present understanding of the mathematician's argument for the mean value theorem. What I dont understand is why it takes three pages of algebra to get there! I don't know where you get the 3 pages from. My analysis book does it 2 paragraphs of algebra, half a page at most. (That's including all the necessary lemmas and definitions). Let us amagine that ab is a bit of a line. It could be straight, and the argument would still hold, but let us imagine that it is curved curved up, curved down, it does not matter. Let's imagine that is an inverted U, except that it doesnt have to be a straight up and down inverted U. In fact, it can be sitting so that somebody wobbled it so that it is, at the instant of being photographed, standing on one leg, about 30 degrees from the verticle. . What does matter is that the line be continuous ALL THE WAY FROM a to B. No gaps, not steps. Imagine that no matter how small the steps you are taking, you can walk along the points of the line from a to b and not get your feet wet, NOT AT ALL -- if of course your shoe size is small enough. Now draw a line that connects the bottom of the two legs of the inverted U. As we just said, that line will move off to the right, from a through b and beyond, at about a thirty degree angle from the horizontal. Thus the mean slope of the tilted inverted U is 30 degrees, right? Here is what that means, as I understand it. Every point on the tilted inverted U has a slope, the slope of the line that is just tangent to the U at that point. Near point a that slope is VERY positive; near point b, that slope is very negative. Now, imagine you set out to walk along the curve from a to b. If you take tiny enough steps, you MUST step on the point where the slope is the same as the mean slope. That is what the mean value theorem says. But I just got there without any of the algebra usually devoted to that proof. So the question is, what is the VALUE of the algebra. If one can estab lish the truth of such an important MATHEMATICAL theorem in other than mathematical means, what is the value of the maths? What you have given is the handwaving version of the proof. The trouble is that human imagination can easily get us into trouble when dealing with infinities, which is necessarily involved in dealing with the concept of continuity. In the above example, you mention that continuity is important, but say nothing about differentiability. Are you aware that continuous curves that are nowhere differentiable exist? I fact most continuous curves are not differentiable. By most, I mean infinitely more continuous curves are not differentiable than those that are, a concept handled by sets of measure zero. To give an example, consider your interval joined by two line segments so as to form a single kink in the middle at point c: At all points on the interior, except for the c, the slope is either s1 = (f(c)-f(a))/(c-a) or s2=(f(b)-f(c))/(b-c). At c, the slope is undefined. But neither s1 nor s2 = (f(b)-f(a))/(b-1), so the mean value theorem fails. I promise I am not MERELY trying to be a horses ass, here. Nick Handwaving arguments are good for developing intuition. Great for teaching during a lecture, and get the students to study the rigorous proof later. Similarly, they're good for scientific seminars, but not scientific papers. Cheers . Nicholas S. Thompson Research Associate, Redfish Group, Santa Fe, NM ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Professor of Psychology and Ethology, Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052
Re: [FRIAM] Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed
On 7/22/07, steve smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am disturbed by the non-sequitur inherent in the Subject and Body of this article: It suggests that the Web inherently *should* make Americans more well informed. Myself, I'm getting a little tired of the pop quizzes demonstrating one kind of ignorance or another. Given any population, there exists some set of questions which they will get mostly wrong, and another set they will get mostly right. So what? Ability to regurgitate facts on demand measures what? Ability to think? No. Ability to research? No. Ability to make good decisions? No. Ability to ask good questions? No. Ability to understand answers? No. If you want people to look smart, ask questions they know the answer to. If you want them to look stupid, ask other questions. In either case, establish that the questions asked are the ones the people should know by hand waving, because there is no authority for the questions people should be able to answer. -- rec -- FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
Re: [FRIAM] Despite the Web, Americans Remain Woefully Ill-Informed
steve smith wrote: 2) The internet, in my opinion, is still mainly a reference source... Somewhere between a dictionary or encyclopedia and a newspaper or magazine subscription. If people aren't interested in these kinds of facts, they won't look them up and they won't subscribe (e-mail lists, blogs, podcasts, news/information web sites) to sources that provide them. With more kinds of appealing facts accessible (ranging from gossip blogs to online academic journals), and assuming fixed available attention by individuals, then we should expect per-individual knowledge of any particular topic to be reduced... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
[FRIAM] It's the Spies, Stupid!
all input effects all output in some sort of way, but it was the outcomes that would come from the whole gamete of unspecified inputs that seemed to be the 'phase space profile' they were most interested in. Many of the papers were on how the inputs could seriously 'misbehave' and still not screw up the control schemes, often discussed in terms of 'malicious agent' concepts, of which the real net has plenty real examples! I also found them very receptive to considering not only what a malicious person would think of doing to defeat someone else's operating plan, but also the 'malicious creativity' of natural system emergence as a focus of design contingencies. Phil Henshaw .?? ? `?. ~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com http://www.synapse9.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 1:19 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why true random? Simulations of stochastic processes also require good RN generators, especially for simulations of large systems with (I hate to use this word) emergent behavioral properties. A bad RN generator will introduce emergent behavior that will be flavored by a bad random sequences. -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On 7/20/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cryptographic applications require true randomness. If your cipher used on a pseudo-random number generator, then a cracker discovering your algorithm and key has broken your code. I also have a hunch that genuine randomness is needed for open-ended evolutionary systems. Here, the evol algorithm is in the position of the code cracker, and once the code is cracked, the evol algorithm stops. I had a workshop paper on this in 2004, which has some problems with it. The concept is controversial, to say the least. Cheers On Sat, Jul 21, 2007 at 10:24:42AM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote: Why is it important (except intellectually) to have true randomness??? I very well remember the early, good old, bad old, days of Aerospace, in the 50's, when we were really doing practical earthshattering things -- like going to the moon -- sans computers!! The RAND corporation, for whom I consulted, published a typed book (size of a Manhattan telephone directory) of random numbers for engineering application. Much entertainment was occasioned when, about three months later, they distributed a list of typos to their original list of random numbers. Today I use homemade random numbers alla time for real problems, specifically the actual response of real flight vehicles in real atmospheric turbulence. Flight tests support analysis, in the sense that what we predict is not obviously incorrect. We have never found it necessary to utilize any more perfectly random random sequences! Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for. 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505 TEL: (505) 983-7728 FAX: (505) 983-1694 FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au http://www.hpcoders.com.au FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070722/bef1457b /attachment-0001.html -- Message: 8 Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:40:10 -0600 From: Roger Frye [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why true random? To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15 I would argue the opposite. While I agree with Doug that you need good RNGs (though not necessarily true RNGs) in order to avoid bias
