Phi

[Salomé]

But fractals aren't chaos; they are composed of patterns and mathematical equations. Or maybe chaos is too, and we just don't know it.

You have this habit of "correcting" people. And being wrong. It's rather trying.

http://www.tnellen.com/alt/chaos.html

You're welcome.

 

[1487610420]

You have this habit of "correcting" people. And being wrong. It's rather trying tiring.

http://www.tnellen.com/alt/chaos.html

FYP.

 

[Salomé]

FYP.

try·ing/ˈtrī-iNG/
Adjective:
Difficult or annoying; hard to endure: "it had been a very trying day".

Thank you for the (recursive) demonstration.

 

[1487610420]

try·ing/ˈtrī-iNG/
Adjective:
Difficult or annoying; hard to endure: "it had been a very trying day".

Thank you for the (recursive) demonstration.

R u always this ez 2 b8, or is it how u flirt?

 

[Salomé]

R u always this ez 2 b8, or is it how u flirt?

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I assumed you were just stupid rather than trolling me.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

[1487610420]

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I assumed you were just stupid rather than trolling me.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

I'll toast to that.

 

[Salomé]

I'll toast to that.

Yeah. My first thought was right.

 

[greenfairy]

You have this habit of "correcting" people. And being wrong. It's rather trying.

http://www.tnellen.com/alt/chaos.html

Well I pretty much said I could be wrong in the next sentence. Anyway, it's just my communication style; I analyze things. Unfamiliar?
Anyway, "wrong" is usually debatable.

try·ing/ˈtrī-iNG/
Adjective:
Difficult or annoying; hard to endure: "it had been a very trying day".

Thank you for the (recursive) demonstration.

I knew what you meant.

 

[Salomé]

Well I pretty much said I could be wrong in the next sentence. Anyway, it's just my communication style; I analyze things. Unfamiliar?
Anyway, "wrong" is usually debatable.

No, it's not. And certainly not in this case.
Although you frequently seem to find grounds for "debate" where there are none.

 

[1487610420]

Yeah. My first thought was right.

inorite? its so ronery being a snowflake.

 

[Salomé]

You shouldn't have to be lonely. Your kind far outnumber the bell-curve outliers.

But if you flirt by being a spectacularly unoriginal PITA, I guess it's unsurprising.

 

[Vasilisa]

 

[greenfairy]

No, it's not. And certainly not in this case.
Although you frequently seem to find grounds for "debate" where there are none.

I'm a philosopher. It's what I do. I think there are ample philosophical grounds to base an argument for the relativity of truth, or at least our ability to have knowledge and certainty of it.

In this case, you're misunderstanding what I said; I acknowledged in the second sentence that what I said in the first sentence may not be the case, at least from my understanding.

I think you have a habit of thinking you're always right. And it's rather tiresome.

Though I appreciate your contributions to the thread topic.

 

[Salomé]

You're a fantasist. And you were wrong. Deal with it.

 

[greenfairy]

You're a fantasist. And you were wrong. Deal with it.

No, I believe you were wrong. Try using your Ne and Fe to understand what people mean when they write instead of assuming everyone else is wrong and resorting to criticism instead of debate.

Anyway, let's stop arguing; the next step is for me to call you a hypocrite- but what I mean is that it's clear we do the same things and they're not productive.

 

[Salomé]

No, I believe you were wrong. Try using your Ne and Fe to understand what people mean when they write instead of assuming everyone else is wrong and resorting to criticism instead of debate.

Anyway, let's stop arguing; the next step is for me to call you a hypocrite- but what I mean is that it's clear we do the same things and they're not productive.

What is clear is that you've just projected what you do onto me. Clear. And hilarious.

Your reply indicated that you have never heard of Chaos Theory which is why you misread my post. That's ok, that's why I helped you out with a primer, no need to get all defensive. You can't know everything. No crime in ignorance, but your arrogance is not attractive.

 

[greenfairy]

Your reply indicated that you have never heard of Chaos Theory which is why you misread my post. That's ok, that's why I helped you out with a primer, no need to get all defensive. You can't know everything. No crime in ignorance, but your arrogance is not attractive.

But fractals aren't chaos; they are composed of patterns and mathematical equations. Or maybe chaos is too, and we just don't know it.

"We" meaning "I." Happy? I wasn't trying to say otherwise. I said something, "or maybe not," which is neither a "correction" nor "wrong," since what I said was Pv~P and ~(Pv~P) is illogical. You were the one who misinterpreted.

What is clear is that you've just projected what you do onto me. Clear. And hilarious.

Keep telling yourself that.

I'm glad you find it hilarious. Maybe now we can get back to the topic. It's a shame, I was quite enjoying our discussion until you decided to take it personally.

 

[sprinkles]

First of all everything has chaos to some extent.

Secondly, chaos is not really randomness. True randomness is incredibly rare. A deterministic dynamic system has chaos in it due to unpredictable error or other factors.

It's like a seed for procedural generation algorithms. It's based on math and is deterministic, but is chaotic in that you cannot predict what it will do. Once you KNOW what it does after it is done, the same seed will produce the same result if you repeat it because that is the initial condition, but you can't predict before hand.

 

[greenfairy]

First of all everything has chaos to some extent.

Secondly, chaos is not really randomness. True randomness is incredibly rare. A deterministic dynamic system has chaos in it due to unpredictable error or other factors.

It's like a seed for procedural generation algorithms. It's based on math and is deterministic, but is chaotic in that you cannot predict what it will do. Once you KNOW what it does after it is done, the same seed will produce the same result if you repeat it because that is the initial condition, but you can't predict before hand.

Fascinating!

 

[sprinkles]

Fascinating!

Yeah it's really interesting.

Consider a tower built by placing small wooden blocks on top of each other. It seems orderly but the taller you build it, the more wobbly it gets because the forces on it and the small errors are cumulative the more you add to it. For each block that you add there's a likelihood that it will be slightly not square, or you've placed it imperceptibly off center, or it is ever so slightly heavier on one side. These all add up until it inevitably falls over.