Which instance of “random” do you think should have been pseudo random?
The instance I quoted. But as I said the point is trivial.
Are you saying that the use of randomisation in software is always a misttake
I don’t think I used the word “mistake”, at all. I didn’t even imply that it’s sometimes a mistake, let alone always.
It is true that a random number is no good in itself, but equally you can’t solve every problem with pure determinism.
Please name three problems you can’t solve with determinism but you can solve with random-number generators. Besides encryption which depends on secrecy and therefore depends on not knowing what will come out, I can’t think of any.
Moreover, randomized algorithms are occasionally useful in a classical computer, since they give good expected performance even for some classes of degenerate inputs.
Which instance of “random” do you think should have been pseudo random?
The instance I quoted. But as I said the point is trivial.
So you are saying that the sentence
“Computer programmes can consult random-number generators where needed, including ‘real’ ones implemented in hardware.”
Should have read
“Computer programmes can consult pseudo- random-number generators where needed, including ‘real’ ones implemented in hardware”.
Are you aware that your change renders the sentence contradictory? The point of real randomness generators is that, given certain assumptions about physics, they are not pseudo?
I don’t think I used the word “mistake”,
If you had used it, I would have had no need to ask the question. I was trying to put you vaguely negative comments about the use of randomness in software on a more precise basis.
Besides encryption which depends on secrecy and therefore depends on not knowing what will come out,
I dont see why an example that works should be excluded becuase it works.
Another example I like is the way ethernet works: when two MAC’s try to send simultaneously, then result
is garbled and they need to back off and retry. However, backing off according to a deterministic algorithm would
lead to another collision on the retry, ad infinitum. Backing off for a random time solves that simply.
I dont see why an example that works should be excluded becuase it works.
The reason encryption requires randomness is not relevant to free will.
The reason MACs need to back off for a random time likewise does not seem relevant to free will either.
I think I’ll tap out at this point. I don’t think there’s anything I can contribute to this discussion beyond what I’ve already said.
The reason encryption requires randomness is not relevant to free will.
I don’t see what you mean. Randomness is relevant to FW because determinism is, prima facie. (Compatibilists feel the need to argue that it in fact isn’t, rather than taking it as obvious). Randomness is relevant to solving
problems. A kind of FW that allows you to solve problems is worth having. If you want a more obviously relevant example, consider that evading a predator with random moves is more effective than adopting a potentially
predictable “evasive pattern delta”
The instance I quoted. But as I said the point is trivial.
I don’t think I used the word “mistake”, at all. I didn’t even imply that it’s sometimes a mistake, let alone always.
Please name three problems you can’t solve with determinism but you can solve with random-number generators. Besides encryption which depends on secrecy and therefore depends on not knowing what will come out, I can’t think of any.
Since quantum algorithms are inherently random, these three problems qualify:
Solve the Deutsch-Jozsa problem in constant time.
Search an unstructured database in O(sqrt(n)) time.
Factorize integers in polynomial time.
Moreover, randomized algorithms are occasionally useful in a classical computer, since they give good expected performance even for some classes of degenerate inputs.
So you are saying that the sentence “Computer programmes can consult random-number generators where needed, including ‘real’ ones implemented in hardware.” Should have read “Computer programmes can consult pseudo- random-number generators where needed, including ‘real’ ones implemented in hardware”. Are you aware that your change renders the sentence contradictory? The point of real randomness generators is that, given certain assumptions about physics, they are not pseudo?
If you had used it, I would have had no need to ask the question. I was trying to put you vaguely negative comments about the use of randomness in software on a more precise basis.
I dont see why an example that works should be excluded becuase it works.
Another example I like is the way ethernet works: when two MAC’s try to send simultaneously, then result is garbled and they need to back off and retry. However, backing off according to a deterministic algorithm would lead to another collision on the retry, ad infinitum. Backing off for a random time solves that simply.
The reason encryption requires randomness is not relevant to free will. The reason MACs need to back off for a random time likewise does not seem relevant to free will either.
I think I’ll tap out at this point. I don’t think there’s anything I can contribute to this discussion beyond what I’ve already said.
I don’t see what you mean. Randomness is relevant to FW because determinism is, prima facie. (Compatibilists feel the need to argue that it in fact isn’t, rather than taking it as obvious). Randomness is relevant to solving problems. A kind of FW that allows you to solve problems is worth having. If you want a more obviously relevant example, consider that evading a predator with random moves is more effective than adopting a potentially predictable “evasive pattern delta”