the importance of topology

[Sherlock Holmes]

I already gave you the formal mathematical treatment.

Lies

ANY system can be treated as a random system.

I never asked how a system might be "treated", but whether chaos is deterministic and you said "no" which is false.

It is a DESCRIPTION, not a property.

All properties can be described.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, yet you still don't understand.

I understand that you are wrong.

You want to argue with me about the "difference" between chaos and randomness. That proves you don't understand either term.

So there is no difference? I don't want to argue I want to know if you think they are the same!

And I simply don't have the time to address your lack of understanding. Sorry.

Is this response something you agree with, just a "yes" or "no" is all it takes to answer:

I shudder at the thought of you writing code, it must push the system to its limits trying to make sense of what you write.

 

[scruffy]

Lies

I am not responsible for your lack of understanding.

I never asked how a system might be "treated", but whether chaos is deterministic and you said "no" which is false.

I said the deterministic view is not a USEFUL level of description.

Which you have proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Since you can not predict the outcomes.

All properties can be described.

You do not know what a random variable is.

That much is plainly obvious for anyone to see.

I understand that you are wrong.

I do not care what you believe.

And I do not have time to address your lack of understanding.

So there is no difference? I don't want to argue I want to know if you think they are the same!

View attachment 1001348

Is this response something you agree with, just a "yes" or "no" is all it takes to answer:

View attachment 1001342

You suffer from the same problem as other creationists.

You ascribe truth to information you don't understand.

I shudder at the thought of you writing code, it must push the system to its limits trying to make sense of what you write.

Shudder all you want.

I do not have the time or the inclination to address your shortcomings.

If Google is good enough for you, then by all means, believe whatever you hear on CNN.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

If Google is good enough for you, then by all means, believe whatever you hear on CNN.

It often is good enough, if I search for basic science questions like "What is Ohm's law" I get the answer, if I search for what is "Frequency modulation" I get the answer and if I search for what is "Chaos" I get the answer.

Google is fine for non-controversial questions, particularly in the material sciences, because one gets citations and articles by reputable experts.

However I also have an extensive library of my own, thousands of books on many areas of science, engineering, mathematics, computing, biology and chemistry, I only reached out to Google in order to do a screenshot and copy and paste which I used to show you are a dingbat, when you lied and said "chaos is not deterministic" (if a student of yours wrote that after believing you, they'd possibly fail their exams) here's more:

You have no credibility here, take your hocus pocus pseudo scientific claptrap and shove it.

 

[scruffy]

It often is good enough, if I search for basic science questions like "What is Ohm's law" I get the answer, if I search for what is "Frequency modulation" I get the answer and if I search for what is "Chaos" I get the answer.

Google is fine for non-controversial questions, particularly in the material sciences, because one gets citations and articles by reputable experts.

However I also have an extensive library of my own, thousands of books on many areas of science, engineering, mathematics, computing, biology and chemistry, I only reached out to Google in order to do a screenshot and copy and paste which I used to show you are a dingbat, when you lied and said "chaos is not deterministic" (if a student of yours wrote that after believing you, they'd possibly fail their exams) here's more:

View attachment 1001405

You have no credibility here, take your hocus pocus pseudo scientific claptrap and shove it.

And yet you can't predict the outcome of that which you claim is deterministic.

You are gullible and your beliefs are flawed.