These kinds of comments tend to happen when you are assuming a shared meaning that isn't so shared. Especially in this context, it's a good idea to be precise in your terminology when there is a commonly used vocabulary for talking about it. Especially when it comes to misconceptions about floating point, which is often treated as 'random' when it generally isn't.
Sometimes specificity matters. Usually when looking directly at some specific piece of code. In this conversation, the intended meaning was clear. Folks just love being the pedant and the brinksmanship which comes with it. There's a propensity to derail otherwise useful conversations into discussions like this rather than dig deeper into what people meant, and were trying to communicate.
> In this conversation, the intended meaning was clear
Apparently it wasn't, as the commenter who originally used the term has now clarified that they did indeed mean non-deterministic. You misunderstood them.
So maybe being specific about terminology here isn't just pointless pedantry?
Regardless of his choice of words, he's specified that he's speaking about IEEE754 and the sort of issues which arise systemically from the compromises inherent in it's design.
He can't attest to them being the same ones in the paper I linked, but I can. Everything he's said is in line with the situation detailed within.
He and I seem to understand each other. I get what he's saying. How the issues with IEEE754 give rise to the nondeterminism he's talking about. I should, I wrote a whole system of libraries to deal with them. Do you understand the conversation? Because it seems like you think we're talking about two unrelated things and you're still arguing over terminology.
