RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
franky172



Posts: 158
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2007,08:25   

<b>Patrick</b> Has chosen to respond to my post here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1968.

Since I've been banned from the thread for explaining how biologists use the word "random", I'm forced to reply here.

<b>Patrick</b>
<i>As in, there are no intermediates? If so, thanks for making my point for me.</i>

Yes.  This is what I've stated elsewhere re: the sparsity of the english language as a the number of letters in a word gets large.  What exactly do you believe that this shows?

I'll repeat my previous question: Do we agree that the results indicate a 10^6 fold performance increase for blind darwininian search over exhaustive searches?

  
  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]