3 ms·

> The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'unpredictable & determined' vs ' unpredictable & undetermined' Also from that page you link

by srunni 11y ago

> The distinction between being 'stocastic' and 'random' is one of 'unpredictable & determined' vs ' unpredictable & undetermined' Also from that page you linked: > a purely stochastic system is one whose state is randomly determined...it can be classified as non-deterministic (i.e., "random") Also: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-difference-between-stochastic-and-random http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/114373/whats-the-dif... > A variable is 'random'. A process is 'stochastic'. Apart from this difference the two words are synonyms

toufka 11y ago
Huh. It seems different scientific fields use the word 'stochastic' in very different ways. The commenter, 'bgins' makes the point, "Random has many connotations (like entropy), not at all equivalent, and is a more generic term usable outside mathematics. Stochastic means nondeterministic or unpredictable. Random generally means unrecognizable, not adhering to a pattern. A random variable is also called a stochastic variable." And user, 'Einnocent,' "Likewise, I've noticed that network theory tends to refer to traffic as being stochastic. Such traffic, from the point of view of a router, would be considered random, but of course each packet was deterministically produced." In the biochemical field (of which I'm familiar, though ignorant of the others), I doubt anyone would say that gene expression is 'random', rather it is 'stochastic', and their intention in choosing those words distinctly would indicate that there are not just probabilistic, but physical limits to the expression of a gene that constrain its probability space. And further, there are generally deterministic (if unpredictable (though not entirely independent) from to state) mechanisms which ultimately lead to gene expression. Were I to say that the expression of gene A is 'random,' then it would seem to imply that there is some minute chance that the result is a billion copies of the gene, when physically, it might be impossible for the cell to exist with that many proteins in it - or that the state of gene expression at time t0 is entirely independent of expression at time t1, which is also untrue. Both of these interpretations of biological processes are misleading and wrong, though they are what is conjured when it is said that, "gene expression is random." All the while, the number of copies is actually dependent on knowable, measurable, if highly-noisy processes - what I've know to be termed 'stochastic'.
- srunni 11y ago
  > Were I to say that the expression of gene A is 'random,' then it would seem to imply that there is some minute chance that the result is a billion copies of the gene Not at all (in mathematical terms, anyway). You can certainly define the probability distribution of a random variable such that only certain values are possible. This is known as its support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_(measure_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_(measure_theory)

by srunni 11y ago

toufka 11y ago

Huh. It seems different scientific fields use the word 'stochastic' in very different ways. The commenter, 'bgins' makes the point, "Random has many connotations (like entropy), not at all equivalent, and is a more generic term usable outside mathematics. Stochastic means nondeterministic or unpredictable. Random generally means unrecognizable, not adhering to a pattern. A random variable is also called a stochastic variable." And user, 'Einnocent,' "Likewise, I've noticed that network theory tends to refer to traffic as being stochastic. Such traffic, from the point of view of a router, would be considered random, but of course each packet was deterministically produced." In the biochemical field (of which I'm familiar, though ignorant of the others), I doubt anyone would say that gene expression is 'random', rather it is 'stochastic', and their intention in choosing those words distinctly would indicate that there are not just probabilistic, but physical limits to the expression of a gene that constrain its probability space. And further, there are generally deterministic (if unpredictable (though not entirely independent) from to state) mechanisms which ultimately lead to gene expression. Were I to say that the expression of gene A is 'random,' then it would seem to imply that there is some minute chance that the result is a billion copies of the gene, when physically, it might be impossible for the cell to exist with that many proteins in it - or that the state of gene expression at time t0 is entirely independent of expression at time t1, which is also untrue. Both of these interpretations of biological processes are misleading and wrong, though they are what is conjured when it is said that, "gene expression is random." All the while, the number of copies is actually dependent on knowable, measurable, if highly-noisy processes - what I've know to be termed 'stochastic'.

srunni 11y ago
> Were I to say that the expression of gene A is 'random,' then it would seem to imply that there is some minute chance that the result is a billion copies of the gene Not at all (in mathematical terms, anyway). You can certainly define the probability distribution of a random variable such that only certain values are possible. This is known as its support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_(measure_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Support_(measure_theory)