Re: Patriarchy: Re: What Matriarchy?
Eric Brunner (firstname.lastname@example.org)
16 Aug 1996 18:54:43 GMT
Stephen Barnard (email@example.com) wrote:
: Here's the deal about chaos theory, in a nutshell, as I understand it.
: It is *not* the case that chaos is equivalent to uncertainty, as you
: seem to believe, although there is a connection.
In my opinion, the lightbulb "went on" when everyone realized that K-autos
(named after Kolmogorov) were "more random" than what had previously been
thought to be "most random" -- Bernoulli processes (roulette wheels). Your
milage may vary, of course, and again, in my mind, Szameridi's theorm's
ergodic proof another important moment of enlightenment.
: It's accessible to non-mathematically inclined people and it tells a
: good story about the scientists and mathematicians behind the theory.
Haven't read it, then again, I haven't read Bell either. Papers are another
: Eric says he's an expert on ergodic systems, so maybe he can elaborate.
I wrote that this was my area of work. I've never felt the desire to open
a popularization of mathematics, so I've nothing to say about how useful
Gleick's book is.
: I hope this isn't too confusing. Gleick's book is very good. I
: recommend it highly.
I'll pass. Better things to do, less speculatively fashionable, than dally
with the latest form of theory-avoidance-by-aversion-into-pseudo-maths. As
a part of European Intellectual History, it (invocation of mathematics) is
to familiar to be novel, and it was Papally enjoined (not that many care)
about 5 centuries ago.