Re: Definitions

From: Brian D Harper (bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2000 - 21:17:33 EST

  • Next message: Allen & Diane Roy: "Re: Definitions"

    At 10:02 PM 3/1/00 -0700, Allen wrote:

    [...]

    >In his latest book on radiometric dating (The Mythology of Radiometric
    >Dating, 1999), Woodmorappe shows that two random number lists will have
    >agreement (with the same kind of accuracy allowed for agreement between
    >radiometric dates) with in the first 20 to 30 pairs of numbers. Thus one
    >can expect a lot of agreement just between two random number lists.
    >Agreement between 3 random number lists occurs within the first 100 to 200
    >numbers. Agreement is not impossible even for purely random number lists.

    hmm... I wonder if Woodmorappe discussed the implications of this amazing
    result wrt the
    argument from improbability that many creationists are fond of? :-)

    Seriously, it seems obvious to me that the agreement suggested above
    between supposed
    random numbers would be sufficient proof that they are not random. Random
    means without
    pattern. If two lists agree, this establishes a pattern. What am I missing?
    Could you possibly fill in
    some details of Woodmorappe' analysis for those of us who do not have
    access to the book?

    Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
    Associate Professor | something and want to
    Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
    The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
                                  | -- Morrowitz



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 18:13:01 EST