random

[Alex Martelli]

"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich at math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:3b1a4ce6.577431 at nntp.sprynet.com...
    ...
> a place where I was asked for a definition
> and didn't give said definition I'll say oops,
> never mind excuse me. But I don't believe that
> that has happened. Accusing me of refusing to
> supply definitions when asked is egregiously
> insulting.

Reading back on the thread I saw I did not directly
ask you for the definition, just indicated that the
definition you (and/or Von Neumann) were using
was not clear by such "hints" as:
"""
If by "perfect" randomness VN meant an infinite amount
thereof (by Chaitin measure), he might have said that
"""

But then I never accused you of not giving the
definition when directly asked to give it -- show
me a place where I said that?  What I meant by
"not deigning" to give the definition was exactly
your failure to provide it when I was clearly saying
that I could not be sure of what the H*** you (and/or
VN) meant by that "perfect" (I believe you were
actually the one to introduce "perfect" or "true" as
adjectives qualifying "randomness"/"random" on
this thread, but I may be wrong -- I've wasted by
far enough time on this thread without going back
for a detailed exegesis of it:-).

You did follow up to this subthread and not offered any
definition of that "perfect" (or "true") on the follow-ups,
I do believe.  Am I wrong -- did I miss some message
in the huge complex of threads?  This has surely been
known to happen on Usenet news at times.


Alex