Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Simple random number generator?
Replies: 5   Last Post: Nov 29, 2012 10:35 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Existential Angst

Posts: 28
Registered: 11/13/11
Re: Simple random number generator?
Posted: Nov 27, 2012 12:43 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
news:0.e12037e9d116e6e9081a.20121127131802GMT.878v9nw5f9.fsf@bsb.me.uk...
> Clark Smith <noaddress@nowhere.net> writes:
>

>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:08:17 -0500, Existential Angst wrote:
>>

>>> Would be the digits of e, pi, et al?
>>> If that's the case, no need for fancy pyooter algorithms?
>>>
>>> Inneresting article on pi, randomness, chaos.
>>> http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pi-random.html

>>
>> Is it not the case that the digits of e, pi et al. can't strictly
>> be random, if it is only because they are highly compressible? I.e.
>> because there small, compact formulas that spit out as many digits as you
>> want in a completely deterministic way?

>
> Absolutely.


Well, as I responded above, Bailey/Crandall would most certainly disagree.

>
> Of course, that's also the case for the "fancy pyooter algorithms" that
> Existential Angst wants to replace, so he or she is not really talking
> about random but about pseudo-random sequences.


Well, ackshooly I am talking about true random. Bailey and Crandall are
hypothesizing that e, pi et al are true random (I like "intrinsically
random"), but you and others are apparently arguing that because pi can be
calc'd or generated, it cannot be random. Bailey/Crandall would clearly
disagree with this.

Calculating the digits
> of pi or e etc (and, presumably, some simple combinations thereof) is
> harder than the super fast "fancy" algorithms already used, so I don't
> see the benefit.


Hasn't pi been calc'd to billions of places already? Seems to me that's
enough random numbers to last people for a while.... lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandomness talks a bit about some
strategies for true random generators. Seem kind of hokey to me, esp. if
people-based.
I think "intrinsic experiments", like single-photon slit/diffraction
experiments would be an elegant way to generate true random numbers -- but
even that is then dependent on the "legitimacy" of the experimental setup.

Even flipping a coin can be biased.... it's not that a fair coin is
inherently random ito heads or tails, but that the *coin tossing mechanism*
has to be guaranteed to be random, ito of initial conditions. No pun
intended, but perhaps a dicey proposition ito true randomness.
Heh, but not a bad pun, eh?
--
EA


>
> --
> Ben.






Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.