Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Simple random number generator?
Replies:
5
Last Post:
Nov 29, 2012 10:35 AM




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/ScienceArticles/Archive/pirandom.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 /.



