Other Directory Sites: SeekWonder | Directory Owners Forum
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:09 ADT
Perry E. Metzger (perry@piermont.com)
Tue, 07 Jul 1998 08:28:35 -0400
Ben Laurie writes:
> > People really have to get it through their heads that this is one
> > field where, when you don't know an answer, you *have* to behave as
> > though the worst is true, not the best.
>
> That is not a helpful argument. I agree you have to assume the worst,
> but you are suggesting that no matter what I assume it isn't bad enough
> (because, allegedly, "I haven't got it through my head that this is one
> field where, when you don't know an answer, you *have* to behave as
> though the worst is true"). Just suppose, as a wild fantasy, that I have
> got that through my head. Now, what is the "worst" in this case? If that
> can't be answered, then the number of bits of entropy I can get per hit
> is zero, surely?
"Reasonable" worst in this case is probably about the levels that John
Walker assumed, though. I admit that we have to be reasonable about
this. What is "reasonable" is, unfortunately, often a matter of
judgement. I agree that it isn't good. My point was more that your
language ("aren't we being overly conservative here") tended in a
dangerous direction rather than the desire to see if you could safely
extract more data.
Perry
The following archive was created by hippie-mail 7.98617-22 on Fri Aug 21 1998 - 17:20:09 ADT