Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

 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

In sci.math message <rubrum-0653B8.15431416122012@news.albasani.net>,
Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:43:20, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> posted:

>In article <slrnkcsl5f.3ro.hrubin@skew.stat.purdue.edu>,
> Herman Rubin <hrubin@skew.stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>

>> On 2012-12-15, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> > In article <OjcVDZPLshyQFw5g@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
>> > Dr J R Stockton <reply1250@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> >> In sci.math message <rubrum-471E53.18462311122012@news.albasani.net>,
>> >> Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:46:23, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> 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 ?.?.Stockton@physics.org
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.

Date Subject Author
11/27/12 Ben Bacarisse
11/27/12 Existential Angst
12/11/12 Michael Press
12/13/12 Dr J R Stockton
12/14/12 Michael Press
12/16/12 Dr J R Stockton
12/16/12 Herman Rubin
12/16/12 Michael Press
12/17/12 Dr J R Stockton
12/18/12 Wally W.
1/7/13 Michael Stemper
12/20/12 Michael Press
12/18/12 David Bernier
12/18/12 Phil Carmody
12/20/12 Michael Press
12/20/12 David Bernier
12/20/12 Brian Q. Hutchings
12/20/12 Brian Q. Hutchings
12/25/12 Phil Carmody
12/25/12 Wally W.
12/25/12 Virgil
12/25/12 Wally W.
12/26/12 Dr J R Stockton
12/20/12 Dr J R Stockton