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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (14812)	6/30/2006 2:06:33 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78419

sooooo? I believe in Hamilton, but I don't believe all systems are chaotic. just because you can create strange attractors, does not mean nature plays at them. If they existed in nature, then systems would not be analysable and they are. All has cause. All systems that have interaction of many variable would be judged chaotic. They don't appear to be. Randomness is not chaos. Seeming randomness may not be random. It may be since mathematical randomness cannot be created, then neither can nature do that. Can you actually flip a coin randomly? No, it is psuedo-random just as surely as making a group of numbers from a remainder. Everyone thinks that things that just happen happen in a fashion that is unpredictable or imponderable. But if you knew all the variable and how they interacted in a fine enough fashion, then there is no randomness. This is the Laplacian conjecture, and many weather theorists have made similar projections. As far as the theoretical statistical system goes, yes it is rather droll. I don't know if it has any hooks worth exploiting. It is a conjecture at this point. I would like to model it. It is like weather TA. EC<:-}