The Math Forum

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: 24   Last Post: Jan 7, 2013 10:52 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Dr J R Stockton

Posts: 2
Registered: 12/17/12
Re: Simple random number generator?
Posted: Dec 17, 2012 1:43 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In sci.math message <>,
Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:43:20, Michael Press <> posted:

>In article <>,
> Herman Rubin <> wrote:

>> On 2012-12-15, Michael Press <> wrote:
>> > In article <>,
>> > Dr J R Stockton <> wrote:

>> >> In sci.math message <>,
>> >> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:46:23, Michael Press <> posted:


>> >> >I do not see how quantum effects can be used to generate
>> >> >random sequences.

>> >> Radioactive decay is due to quantum effects, and there is a fixed
>> >> probability for each atom to decay in the next time interval.

>> > From what does the unpredictability of radioactive decay arise?
>> From the assumption that the atoms decay in a random manner. This
>> gives unpredictability. The other quantum assumptions say that
>> the decays of the various atoms are independent, and that the
>> decay is at an exponential rate.

I think the last bit is a consequence in agreement with observation,
rather than an assumption. Ask me long enough ago, and I could in
principle raise the matter with PAMD himself.

>> The msin assumption in this is that the probability that an
>> atom which has not decayed by time T will still have a probability
>> of decay between T and U which is independent of anything which has
>> happened before time T, and only depends on U-T.

>I am asking for the basis of the unpredictability
>in physical theory. Assuming it is random is to
>beg the question.
>I hold that the wave theory of matter does not
>predict random occurrences.

Little can be done about ignorance of such profundity. You reject the
mainstream physics of the last 85 years or thereabouts.

(c) John Stockton, near London. Mail ?.?
Web <> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.