Re: Fundamental Data Types?

From: Dave Ulmer <daveulmer_at_ccwebster.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 17:23:05 -0700
Message-ID: <bg9nhe$lo9k0$1@ID-186663.news.uni-berlin.de>

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:VWZVa.1476$Z_.266267793_at_mantis.golden.net...

> Mikito has demonstrated to this newsgroup on many occasions that he is
> anything but a dimwit. You have yet to do anything comparable.

So why must he stoop to personal attacks on an author when he obviously doesn't understand the question?

> By your definition above, a pseudorandom number generator is an
> understanding because it is a process that creates new data, an
> electromagnetic pulse is an understanding because it affects data, and the
> moment of Archimedes' sudden bathing insight was not an understanding
> because the information was not yet suitable for machine processing.

Yes my definition of an understanding is exceedingly broad. You need to look at the bigger picture of the Universe as a whole before you can judge whether a certain change in data is or is not driven by some understanding engine. A spark or pulse of energy may have been intentionally engineered to produce a random result. This is the way the system of mutation in living systems performs to produce random intended results.

Dave... Received on Wed Jul 30 2003 - 19:23:05 CDT