John Edser wrote:
> I think I missed replying
> to this part of the discussion:
> 
> 
>>>JE:-
>>>Typically, you confuse a random
>>>pattern with a random process. While
>>>the refutation and verification of either
>>>a random or non random pattern is possible,
>>>it is not possible to verify that only a random
>>>process caused any verified random pattern, ever.
> 
> 
> 
>>BOH:-
>>How can you refute a random pattern? 
> 
> 
> JE:-
> By proving the _pattern_ was non random.
> 
> This is done by measuring the 
> probability that this pattern was non
> random (i.e. something and not just
> zero was actually being observed). If 
> this probability is high enough then the
> pattern is now validly redefined as non random
> i.e. as _significant_ and not just left 
> to be _assumed_ to be just a random, 
> not significant, pattern.
> 
And how do you measure the probability of for the pattern, without 
fitting a model, i.e. without making any assumptions about the process?

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/8/03 3:27:45 PM