Bruce Nevin (991217.1538 EST)--
... in this "switching" thread I was talking about priority as a basis for
choice, not temporal order. I couldn't see a necessary connection between
changing gain and making a choice. With your clarification, I now do. I see
that by changing relative gain of two systems that are in conflict over a
CV, the value of the CV approaches more closely to the reference for one
system, even "close enough" to have the effect of a choice.
That example really refers to the _means_ of carrying out a choice. It
doesn't address the basis on which the choice is decided, prior to the
action that carries it out. It's odd, but if you really have a "basis" for
making a choice, there's no choice to be made. Suppose you have an
algorithm for choosing among cookies: measure them and take the largest
one. Presented with a plate of cookies, you need only determine which is
the largest one and take it. There are no alternatives to choose among. You
have to make a choice only when your measurement reveals two or more
cookies of the same size, so the basis breaks down. And then, of course,
you are at a loss: there is no basis for choosing any one of the largest
ones. Perhaps you invent a basis: you number the otherwise equal cookies 1
through n where n is less than 7, and roll a die. That removes the
necessity of choosing, and you simply do as the number on the die
instructs. The only way to make a _true_ choice is to reorganize at random.
Any basis for making a choice really removes the need for making a choice
by removing all alternatives but one.
Best,
Bill P.