Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (14047)	8/11/1999 1:03:00 PM
From: Raybert	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 29970

<<In-and-out engages to an exponential degree the binding to asymptotic return of that activity which is extremely negative. Every system determined decision is built partially on the previous decision's error which is skewed negatively. A system uses information already processed and so is a feedback mechanism. The skewing comes from the feedback of expected error. Systems multiply error. When you randomly select you disengage from that added error and error is held to additive rather than multiplicative in the tableau of time series states.>> I just know there's a pony in here somewhere!

To: ahhaha who wrote (14047)	8/11/1999 2:51:00 PM
From: Raybert	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

<<In-and-out engages to an exponential degree the binding to asymptotic return of that activity which is extremely negative. Every system determined decision is built partially on the previous decision's error which is skewed negatively. A system uses information already processed and so is a feedback mechanism. The skewing comes from the feedback of expected error. Systems multiply error. When you randomly select you disengage from that added error and error is held to additive rather than multiplicative in the tableau of time series states.>> Okay time for a bit more thought on this. While I'm not exactly sure of some of your context I do disagree with some of your statements on a purely theoretical basis (which this whole conversation is). We can suppose that any system that produces 100% error would not be used for very long. So we can assume that any system we are speaking of has had some level of success even if most of it was randomly created. The non-random error of each new event will tend to balance the non-random success in such a way that the total error of the system remains statistically constant. Even a system that contains a feedback mechanism should settle into a fairly static state where the feedback merely confirms that the system is working as it has. Your point requires that the system consistently produces unwanted results, and it continues to operate, compounding the error. While that is certainly possible it is not always true. In general I really like your posts. But all of your arguments seem stretched to support some horrible future cataclysm. As a general rule it seems that all things tend to go to the mean, and that somehow, the world muddles through. Thermodynamically speaking, it seems to take just as much energy to create a hugely negative event as it does a hugely positive event. The difference is perspective and wether you are in front of it or behind it.