I find it even more bizarre that almost nobody else finds it bizarre.
I also have a little trouble with algorithms that use random numbers. But I accept as an empirical fact about the world that probability theory works and so computers, being in the world, can exploit this. In some ways it's less troublesome to me.
But I find it weird that the same reasoning works for deterministic systems too. Do pseudorandom algorithms work because there is some hard-to-see randomness buried in Monte Carlo algorithms? Not in the algorithm itself, obviously, but in the way that we, in the world, use them. I think the paper I link to below  argues this but I don't completely get it. (I think you can sidestep the quantum and multiverse stuff in that paper. Part of the argument could be applied to probability theory rather than quantum mechanics.)
If I hadn't written this sentence, I bet someone would ask "but if you accept randomised algorithms work, why would you have trouble with pseudorandomised algorithms, after all random and pseudorandom numbers are hard to distinguish?" But that's exactly my point.
- Software Engineer, present
- University of Alabama
Pandora Radio - Listen to Free Internet Radio, Find New Music
Pandora radio is the personalized internet radio service that helps you find new music based on your old and current favorites. Create custo
The Google+ project: real life sharing, rethought for the web.
The Google+ project aims to make sharing on the web more like sharing in real life. Check out Circles, Sparks, and Hangouts, just a few of t
Taking MapReduce to Monte Carlo « NathanWiegand.com
Taking MapReduce to Monte Carlo. MapReduce is one of those simple ideas that you look back on and say, well damn, I could have thought of th