Why? The reply would have been the same if I quoted the whole «superficially counterintuitive to people that [...]» (instead of just pointing to the original).
> proceeded with a non superficial comment
Well, hopefully ;)
Your post went into the right direction of leading towards the idea that "there is intuition, and there is mature thought further from that: and processors must not stop at intuition, immature thought".
(Stochastic output falls in said category of "intuition"... As "bad intuition", since it goes in the wrong direction in the vector "naive to sophisticated".)
Why? The reply would have been the same if I quoted the whole «superficially counterintuitive to people that [...]» (instead of just pointing to the original).
> proceeded with a non superficial comment
Well, hopefully ;)
Your post went into the right direction of leading towards the idea that "there is intuition, and there is mature thought further from that: and processors must not stop at intuition, immature thought".
(Stochastic output falls in said category of "intuition"... As "bad intuition", since it goes in the wrong direction in the vector "naive to sophisticated".)