
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 <rubrum0653B8.15431416122012@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 20121215, 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 <rubrum471E53.18462311122012@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 UT. > > >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

