Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site mtgzz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!leeper
From: leeper@mtgzz.UUCP (m.r.leeper)
Newsgroups: net.startrek
Subject: Re: Followup to 'His was the most human
Message-ID: <1742@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 21:58:52 EST
Article-I.D.: mtgzz.1742
Posted: Thu Mar 20 21:58:52 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 04:20:24 EST
References: <1661@mtgzz.UUCP> 24900128@uiucdcs <4571MIQ@PSUVMA>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Middletown NJ
Lines: 27


 >>In other words, this is a LOGICAL way to play against such
 >>a player, right?
 >     
 >     You mean the logical thing to do is to play randomly,

Or pseudo-randomly.

 >without logic?  
 
No, to play pseudo-randomly with logic.  In game theory one often sees
that the best results can be accomplished by using a randomizing
element.  Suppose you are playing the children's game of "which had is
the candy in?"  The best strategy in this game is to decide perfectly
randomly which hand to put the candy in.  The fact that decisions are
made randomly in a process does not imply that that process is without
logic.  In fact it may be totally logical and still have a randomizing
element.
 
 >Isn't that a contradiction in terms?  (Where have I heard that
 >before?)  

Hardly.  Why do you keep insisting that logic and randomness are
completely incompatible?

				Mark Leeper
				...ihnp4!mtgzz!leeper