Talk:Randomness
|
|
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Randomness]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Randomness&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Randomness/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Randomness/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Randomness&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
I would like some of our resident philosophers to help with this article. I can write wads about physics and math, but this topic is, in my opinion, primarily philosophical. -- Miguel
It would be nice to have a quote from Richard Feynman where in his book QED he talks about 'the rubbish spewed' by some philosophers about how randomness of quantum mechanics proves/disproves freewill etc. Johnflux 17:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the Knuth quote belongs on the pseudorandomness page. Chadloder 12:42 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
I was wondering about this bit: "To solve this 'problem', random events are sometimes said to be caused by chance. Rather than solving the problem of randomness, this opens the gaping hole of the ontological status of chance. It is hard to avoid circularity by defining chance in terms of randomness."
I've never come across anyone stating that randomness is *caused* by chance. Any references? I'd be interested in reading up on this idea.
- Seth Mahoney 18:30, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Randomness rocks!!! Selphie 14:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For instance there is a report of a dog who, after a visit to a vet whose clinic had tile floors of a particular kind, refused thereafter to go near such a tiled floor, whether or not it was at a vet's.
I can't find anything more on this on google. Anyone have a source? Johnflux 17:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The paragraph "However, the English language has had a steady decline .." is fairly incomprehensible, and doesn't seem to be NPOV. Could someone fix this please? JohnFlux 09:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've marked the article for cleanup. The whole Randomness in humor section is just screwy for example.JohnFlux 16:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Update: After discussion on #physics on irc, hondje couldn't salvage anything but the first paragraph of this section, and just deleted it. JohnFlux 17:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The first paragraph about randomness and lack of bias is a bit wonky.. Something can be random yet have a bias. Consider the sum of two dice - the result is random but 7 has higher probability than 12.JohnFlux 11:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Richard T. 9:42 22 Jun, 2005 (UTC)
Newbie here. So is there a page that discusses the diffrenences between: Randomness (ie, purely random), pseudo-random (ie, generated by a sequence/formula and will eventually repeat), chaotic (apparently stable, but then exhibits "abnormal" behaviour), semi-periodic behavior, etc, etc, etc. ?