#math - Fri 11 May 2007 between 02:01 and 02:13

NY Lost Funds

 gkr Z_n = Z/nZ, right? TRWBW gkr: yes sloof3 gkr: of course action gkr thought he was all wrong gkr thought he was all wrong TRWBW gkr: you mean mod n, yes? gkr Thanks.Yep TRWBW. sloof3 wow... Capso sloof3: No, the point is: no matter WHAT input, you get the SAME output, for the SAME function definition. sloof3 Capso: why would we get the same output Capso sloof3: That's the whole thing, isn't it?sloof3: You know your output, you know what the system is doing, you just don't know what you gave the system. sloof3 I was thinking in terms of a system with an observable output and changing input Capso Your 'observability' defines the probabilities of what you MIGHT have given the system. sloof3 Capso: yes Capso So, the OUTPUT needs to stay the same. sloof3 If the output always stayed the same that wouldn't help us would it? Capso You can only CONSIDER one output.All the input values which would get that output. sloof3 We don't know the inputs though Capso The thing is: you're not DETERMINING anything, you're simply getting a rating of a definition FROM an observation.Right, we don't know input. sloof3 Originally I was only considering a system that had changing inputs.We would need at least n outputs for n inputs Capso Sorry, had some disruption here.No, your GOAL is to define 'observability' by knowing ONLY the following:(1) The number of inputs a function might take(2) The operation (definition) of the function(3) The output(s?) of the function.And the 'observability' will simply be you *ability to define the inputs to obtain the output(s?)*. sloof3 define the inputs given the outputs Capso That's vague.What I've stated is clearer.The reason I include the '(s?)' in 'output(s?)' is that I'm still considering whether we should take into account > 1 output.You need certain inputs to GET those outputs.Okay, suppose:f(x,y) = x + y; -- Definitionf(x,y) = 5f(x,y) = 6Etc.