"Ben Bacarisse" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:0.7912956cb736cc5e9ead.20121128152922GMT.email@example.com... > "Existential Angst" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > >> "Ben Bacarisse" <email@example.com> wrote in message >> news:0.ef56b5652decd19bb478.20121128013501GMT.firstname.lastname@example.org... >>> "Existential Angst" <email@example.com> 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).
What is compressibility, and what is its significance here?
So are the digits of pi random or not?
I personally think picking 5 or 10 consecutive digits from the current trillion digits of pi, and making THAT the basis for a Lotto win would be more inneresting than a bunch of air-blown pingpong balls....
> > <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?
Well, however many binary places it takes to to make the digit 9 -- 4 places?? lol
> >> 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".
In the sense that every 4 photon trials could be used to specify a base 10 digit,ergo a random generator. I figger if one photon trial has a random result, 4 trials would be even random-er.... Angst's Theorem?? -- EA