On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 21:36 +0100, Richard Davey wrote: > Hi Robert, > > Friday, June 8, 2007, 7:47:17 PM, you wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-06-08 at 19:35 +0100, Richard Davey wrote: > >> Hi Robert, > >> > >> Friday, June 8, 2007, 7:21:39 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> > Precisely defined limits are not the same as precisely defined values. I > >> > might precisely define the amount of entropy on a random value as being > >> > some formula based on the current temperature of my CPU. The formula is > >> > quite precise, but the value is only precisely known after I take the > >> > temperature... and even then it probably doesn't serve me to know it > >> > explicitly unless I'm verifying results. If I then take that random > >> > value and use it to make other decisions then the end result isn't > >> > exactly precise. > >> > >> The end result isn't "precise", but it will always exist between some > >> very real and very price possible values, those controlled by the min > >> and max temp of your CPU. > > > ... and the resolution at which the temperature can be measured. But we > > digress, this is merely a specific example, there are many more metrics > > that can be sampled to give an extremely large range of values. > > And I'd wager those values too have precise minimums and maximums. You > can pluck an "approximate" value from between them however you like, > but I'm still waiting for evidence that that value will never lie > between some very tangible limits, and still be of any kind of > real-world value in your code. Due to the very nature and way in which > CPUs work, and the effect this passes up through to any language that > cares sit on it, at the end of the day if the architecture itself > cannot deal with 'approximate' values, anything that happens on the > higher level will always be reduced to a value that exists between two > very solidly set limits. If you don't impose those in your code, what > happens beneath will impose it for you regardless. I'd be happy to > read some papers or code that you feel demonstrates what you're trying > to get across if you have any links. I never said they wouldn't be tangible precise values, but the likelihood of you computing the complete set of possible outcomes approaches zero as more range is added. The very nature of existence and perception relies on the tangible. We can imagine infinity but we cannot experience it. Since you can't experience beyond a certain threshold of possible outcomes, the result set is no longer tangible to your perceptions. Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
