```Date: Nov 27, 2012 8:35 PM
Author: Ben Bacarisse
Subject: Re: Simple random number generator?

"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/Science-Articles/Archive/pi-random.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.No they don't.  They use random, quite properly, in a slightly informal,statistical sense:  It is of course a long-standing open question whether the digits of  and various other fundamental constants are "random" in an appropriate  statistical sense.Note the quotes and the fact that the term is immediately qualified.>> Of course, that's also the case for the "fancy pyooter algorithms" that>> Existential Angst wants to replace, so he or she is not really talking>> about random but about pseudo-random sequences.>> Well, ackshooly I am talking about true random.  Bailey and Crandall are > hypothesizing that e, pi et al are true random (I like "intrinsically > random"), but you and others are apparently arguing that because pi can be > calc'd or generated, it cannot be random.   Bailey/Crandall would clearly > disagree with this.No, they don't.  I am sure they accept the information theoreticmeaning of the word, just as I accept the statistical sense of the term(especially what in "scare quotes").>  Calculating the digits>> of pi or e etc (and, presumably, some simple combinations thereof) is>> harder than the super fast "fancy" algorithms already used, so I don't>> see the benefit.>> Hasn't pi been calc'd to billions of places already?  Seems to me that's > enough random numbers to last people for a while....   lolDoes the lol mean you are joking?<snip>> I think "intrinsic experiments", like single-photon slit/diffraction > experiments would be an elegant way to generate true random numbers -- but > even that is then dependent on the "legitimacy" of the experimental> setup.Good quality, hardware-generated random number sequences (if our currentunderstanding of quantum effects is correct) are random in a differentway to the digits of pi.  It helps if the terminology is be able todistinguish between them.<snip>-- Ben.
```