I read \"Chaos Theory\" back in the 80\'s. The new math behind systems formerly characterized as \"chaotic\" (fluid flow dynamics, as the classic example) redefined the notion of \"chaos\" mathematically. It\'s one of those great misnomers that exists within modern analysis. The good news is that whereas most people might have a difficult time making a distinction between \"random\" and \"chaotic\" from a common language usage point of view, chaotic in the math world actually means that a system CAN be described (and its change predicted ) if the data is approached properly. It might take some higher understanding of some equally weirdly named mathematical concepts such as the \"strange attractor,\" but it can be done in theory. The verdict of \"random\" in the t-bond market is much more of a problem there than one of being \"chaotic.\" If their mathematical analysis is correct for that market, it means that there is nothing any trader could ever do to predict the future market movement of t-bonds. As always, the time frame is the primary issue. More data means better predictability. A very interesting basis of chaos theory, however, is that primary patterns repeat themselves regardless of scale. I\'ve seen this in the FX market: a \"shape\" of data on a chart of a year of data shows up in charts of a month, or even a day. Long story short is that when an MIT thinktank makes a distinction between chaotic and random, chaotic means there IS a predictable element, whereas random cannot be predicted at all.

I have been watching your blog for a long time, and learned a lot.
The april issue you mentioned seems can't be found on this website, the lattest available is March issue.
Anyway, thanks for your info.

So Chad, what are you saying about Bill Reid. I am trying to do some backgroud research on this guy and I can\'t find anything. He supposedly worked for IBM and NASA and has a Masters degree. Can anybody except Bill Reid voucher for Bill Reid?