|
|
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.
Just answer what I ask.
This is science, not religion.
--
Michael Press
|
|
