"Existential Angst" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > "Ben Bacarisse" <email@example.com> wrote in message > news:0.e12037e9d116e6e9081a.20121127131802GMT.firstname.lastname@example.org... >> Clark Smith <email@example.com> 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?
Bottom line to all this, I think this problem has a significant epistemological component, as it does a mathematical component. Epistemology is a hard thing to gain perspective on, indeed.... never mind prove. -- EA