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 ]
 Michael Press Posts: 2,137 Registered: 12/26/06
Re: Simple random number generator?
Posted: Dec 20, 2012 2:57 AM

In article <bSIAPAVdf2zQFwgK@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid>,
Dr J R Stockton <reply1251@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

This is science, not religion.

--
Michael Press

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