Talk:Indeterminacy in concurrent computation: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:55, 1 March 2006

Revision as of 17:42, 1 March 2006

Line 97:

* indeterminacy due to chaos as described in [[chaos theory]] ("Sensitive dependence on initial conditions").

* indeterminacy caused by limited powers of [[observation]] and integration of the facts.

* limitations due to the nature of human [[memory]] and thought processes. {{unsigned2|22:36, 28 February 2006|24.23.213.158}}

:I'm not sure what you're referring to, but my assertion is that the system described is not predictiblepredictable because of external inputs, not because of "quantum indeterminacy", or any other kind of indeterminacy. [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 02:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

::The consensus in the scientific literature is that outcome of the operation of an Arbiter is indeterminate once it has become metastable. Do you know of any literature to the contrary? {{unsigned2|05:22, 1 March 2006|24.23.213.158}}

::: Hello Carl (welcome back!) ;) --[[User:CSTAR|CSTAR]] 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

::: The consensus in '''your''' writings is such -- I have doubts about the scientific literature in general. But that has nothing to do with my assertion -- the nonpredictability is not due to indeterminancy, but due to external inputs. -- [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 17:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)