On 2007/11/29, Tom St Denis <tstdenis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > J.C. Pizarro wrote: > > Q: What does it print? > > A: Random data. > > > > Q: How does it print? > > A: Stochastically. > > > > I said "it prints stochasticly random data". Is it wrong? > > > > Yes. > > Stochastic, Adjective: of or pertaining to a process involving a > randomly determined sequence of observations each of which is considered > as a sample of one element from a probability distribution. > > It's not "stochastically" printing anything. In fact, for any given > instance of the compiled unit, it's entirely predictable what's going to > happen. Just look at the machine code. And it's hardly random data > anyways. 5 32-bit numbers where most of the bits are the same is hardly > "random." At best, they're different, and more correctly, undefined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic says "A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic in that a state does not fully determine its next state." In this case, printing it above is a stochastic process, a stochastic running program. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_process says "A stochastic process, or sometimes random process, is the opposite of a deterministic process (or deterministic system) in probability theory. Instead of dealing only with one possible 'reality' of how the process might evolve under time (as is the case, for example, for solutions of an ordinary differential equation), in a stochastic or random process there is some indeterminacy in its future evolution described by probability distributions." My input's sequence for the program was { 1 to 10, 1 to 10, 1 to 10, 1 to 10, 1 to 10 } and the output's sequence was { sequence of random data and inestimable }. > You don't need to invent terminology. He, he, he, he, why can't invent the existent or unexistent wheel as the people does? > int a; > printf("a == %d\n", a); > > That's not "random," nor is it "stochastic," or even "perplexing!" for > that matter. It's undefined. I can't tell you what that will print. > But I can justify what it did print [if that makes any sense...]. > > Tom It's not a "functional programming", it's an "imperative programming", they are different. J.C.Pizarro
