Date: Nov 28, 2012 10:29 AM 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.ef56b5652decd19bb478.20121128013501GMT.87k3t6v7ay.fsf@bsb.me.uk...

>> "Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> writes:

<snip>

>>> 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 theoretic

>> meaning of the word, just as I accept the statistical sense of the term

>> (especially when in "scare quotes").

[I corrected some of my spelling in the above]

>

> What is the diffeence between "random" in the information-theoretic context

> vs. the statistical context?

> Wouldn't the two be correlatable or translatable in some way?

They are related but they are not the same. I think all

non-compressible sequences will be statistically random, but not

vice versa (as pi shows).

<snip>

>>> 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.... lol

>>

>> Does the lol mean you are joking?

>

> Well actually, the wiki article I linked says pi has been calc'd to a

> *trillion* digits.

> The point being, if you need a random sequence, for whatever purpose, you

> can just sort of pull them "off the shelf", from anywhere in the sequence.

> A trillion numbers oughtta do ya....

The problem is the size of the shelf. It's much simpler to link to

small PRNG algorithm than to provide access to a pre-computed large

sequence.

<snip>

>> Good quality, hardware-generated random number sequences (if our current

>> understanding of quantum effects is correct) are random in a different

>> way to the digits of pi. It helps if the terminology is be able to

>> distinguish between them.

>

> Which harks back to the above.

> Couldn't you take a single photon slit experiment, sample the results

> "byte-wise", ie, record every diffraction result in groups of 5, and let

> those five zero's/one's represent a base 10 digit? Then, you'd have the

> photon slit experiment generate irrational-number-like randomness.

Why 5?

> In that sense, information-theoretic randomness (if you would charactize the

> photon exp as "informational") and statistical randomness could be

> translatable?

I don't know what you mean by "translatable".

--

Ben.