Richard,

Try and use a little logic!

If you are trying to explain A (something with which you have absolutely no direct contact at all) and the only information you have about A comes about through some totally undefined communications pipeline, then you certainly cannot ascribe to A any specific patterns which could have been generated by that pipeline (gee guys, the pipeline might have done it). If you cannot see the essence of that problem we are just wasting time!

When you do ascribe any such pattern (particularly any simple symmetry) to A, you are essentially stating that you *know* that the patterns were *not* generated by the communications pipeline! Now just exactly how did you come to be blessed with that information?

If you know anything about what that function is doing or not doing (how the pipeline works), it's not totally undefined.

The whole central issue in the problem as I have presented it is that absolutely *nothing* is defined until we define it (with one single exception: as I have said before, I specifically accept math and logic as defined). Do you have any inkling of what I am saying? If not, why don't we just forget the issue?

Have fun -- Dick

• You used the shift symmetry - yanniru - October 17, 2001 - 14:21 UTC
• Ok! - doctordick - October 17, 2001 - 17:33 UTC
  • Becuase you are smart - yanniru - October 18, 2001 - 14:13 UTC
    • Well Gee! - doctordick - October 18, 2001 - 19:23 UTC
      • Why don't you - harvey1 - October 19, 2001 - 14:22 UTC
        • I don't think you understand. - doctordick - October 19, 2001 - 16:25 UTC
          • Okay, then... - harvey1 - October 20, 2001 - 13:23 UTC