On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 15:56 -0500, Pavitra wrote: > Either the rule is broken platonically (UNDETERMINED is appropriate), or > it's broken pragmatically (it's possible to exploit it as I described). > In no case is it working properly.
I see what you mean... I'm inclined to think it's broken platonically, and if I understand your point correctly, it's that platonic random numbers are impossible to determine; this seems to be correct, but a mess. -- ais523
