|
|
Re: Simple random number generator?
Posted:
Nov 29, 2012 10:35 AM
|
|
"Phil Carmody" <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87624opy3k.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org...
> "Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> writes:
>> "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.
>
> Nope, you certainly are too mathematically naive to understand what
> Bailey et al. have said. For example, at the URL above, the word
> "random" is in quotes, implying not actually random in every sense,
> and then later it explicitly says "in a certain statistical sense".
> That's all, in one sense, not in every sense.
>
> Are you a new troll, or an old troll that's just morphed?
Neither.
And yeah, I'm "mathematically naive", which is why I posted the Q.
You, however, are an elitist asshole, who I'm sure was just steps away from
solving FLT, right?
--
EA
>
> Phil
> --
> Regarding TSA regulations:
> How are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?
> Because four bottles can hold the components of a binary liquid explosive,
> whereas one big bottle can't. -- camperdave responding to MacAndrew on /.
|
|
