ATTN: Russian selfloathing Jew

What do you think about 'randomness'? Does it exist? Ho to measure it?

Go back to /b/

>>1
Get glibc sources and see for yourself.

And I'm slavic, not jewish.

>>3
It's possible to be both if you can't trace your heratige.

>>3
glibc sources
That's not randomness. That's a completely deterministic Markov sequence.

>>4
Both of my lineages are from peasantry.

>>6
There were plenty of peasant Jews. Not all of them are highly-placed, you know.

>>7
There were plenty of peasant Jews.
Proof?

Not all of them are highly-placed, you know.
No. But jews mostly done parasitic jobs, like usury and selling alcohol to peasants. That is why jews were hated through europe and middle east.

>>8
You're a muslim pretending to be russian.

>>9
Yeah, I remember distinctly when he claimed to be of Arabic rather than Slavic descent. Bumping for provocation, maybe he will feel the urge to become a martyr.

>>8
The ones who did usury and sold alcohol to peasants WERE the ones who were "highly-placed" at that time. Aside from a few rich-as-fuck families, you can't really say the other ones were politically highly-placed.

>>9>>10
Islam isn't judaism. It welcomes people of all nationalities.

>>11
That is why most of jewry was highly placed. Of course, some of jews (like Cantor's family) seized jobs unavailable to serfs, becoming merchants, musicians and the likes.

>>12
Your post references are not OPTIMIZED! Please OPTIMIZE your references for the benefit of all /prog/ users. Thank you.

>>12
Someone has to do those jobs, either way you take it.  It's our fault if we didn't step up and did them.

An observer can only measure randomness by statistical methods which will just tell you how uniform the distribution is. If psuedorandom values are enough for your needs it's okay, if you want it to be something which you have no control over and tends to be unique, use something from the environment: quantum noise would be perfect, but other cues can also be used.

Does true random value exist? This depends on your metaphysical views (not that they actually change whats underneath, but since we can only make educated guesses at that...). My own view is that the MWI interpretation of quantum mechanics (and something equivalent to Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble for the underlying explanation for why physical existense is) is the most probable one, and thus this means there is no randomness in the actual "definition" of the multiverse, but since we are just self-aware entities existing within some spacetime instance of a multiverse, our own view will thus have random characteristics (which multiverse).

If this isn't enough to explain my view, imagine you have 10 boxes with their index number written inside each of them (from 1 to 10), now imagine in each of them you place a atom-by-atom clone of yourself. All 10 clones will have subjective experience. The system in itself has no randomness, but each clone will see a random number (the box's index number).

In conclusion, randomness can only be present in the subjective experience of something, but it is never present in the complete system itself. Pseudorandomness and statistical randomness are present everywhere, both in nature and in programs of our own making, and for all intents and purposes the values will appear random to us, despite not being truly random.

>>12
You're a lier anyway, muslim.

*liar

>>16
Let's not lose focus here. We don't deride him for following a particularly retarded^[1] religion, but rather because he is a self-contradictory, anti-semitic, finitist shitposting spammer.

[sub]_____________________________________
1. The retardedness of all religions not withstanding.[/sup]

Second revision of >>18

Let's not lose focus here. We don't deride him for following a particularly retarded[1] religion, but rather because he is a self-contradictory, anti-semitic, finitist shitposting spammer.

<sub>____________________________________________________________
1. The retardedness of all religions not withstanding.</sub>

>>19
It's okay to be antisemitic. Bringing it up at every fucking occasion on a board whose subject has nothing to do with JEWS is why we deride him.

I forgot to mention that I'm not the person >>1 asked for (the ``in LISP'' guy?).

>>18
No, his lies are a problem. It could lead people to think that Russians are nazis. He's been hiding that he was a muslim, and he perfectly knows why.
Also my apologies to Russian people, for some things I said.

>>20
Yes, I agree. Of course I don't believe that Jews deserve to be hated just for who they are, but the problem with the ``in Lisp'' guy is fundamentally that he is a recognizable shitpost spammer. What kind of shit he spams with posts is almost irrelevant, when someone does it so obnoxiously, so idiotically and so frequently you can hate on anything.

And, really, the worst of all is that he isn't even trolling.

>>23
I disagree about the last part.

WHAT DOES THE FINITIST THINK ABOUT ``RANDOMNES''????

>>13
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism#Who_is_a_Jew.3F
According to traditional Jewish Law, a Jew is anyone born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism in accordance with Jewish Law.
conversion has traditionally been discouraged since the time of the Talmud.
Meaning "jews" aren't a race, but a closed religious sect.

>>26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam#Why_Muslims_impersonate_Russians_to_troll_prog

ATTN: Russian selfloathing Jew
What do you think about `katy'? Does she exist? Ho random is she?

Randomness most likely exists, but most things we consider random aren't. It's believed that thing that the behavior of synapses and atomic particles are random, but nothing's been proven.

>>29
You can't ``prove'' it. The scientific method can only speak of observations and facts. It can show what something isn't.

Quantum particle movements are statistically random.
Synapses? They may exhibit some random variation like any physical process, but they are not ``random'' (what would this even mean? synapses are formed by known biochemical processes and their function is understood, despite the fact that the system itself (brain, its regions, minicolumns) is a lot more complicated).

Now back to quantum particles, this depends on the physical realization of our 'laws of physics'. Do we have branching like in MWI where from a state you can get a large other number of states? In which case the observer will discern randomness by being aware of the "state" he is in (not possible for an observer except by interaction with the world). See my previous example for an explanation.

If you don't subscribe to MWI then there would be some underlying rule which explain why the particles are in the states that they are (a hidden variable theory), in which case there is no physical randomness, just pseudorandomness.

The question lies in wether we want to group pseudorandomness together with subjective randomness of perception of being in a particular universe. We may even consider our laws of physics of being such a random factor, "Why these particular laws? Why not other laws? Why not a cellular automaton? Why not some different physical constant? Why not a completly different mathematical structure (we know enough which are different enough)? It may be said that the answer to this question would be wether the structure could result in self-aware observers as ourselves contained within this structure and being aware of the structure and themselves, however with a bit of thought (and possibly one day experimental verification) one would realize that such structures are possible, thus our own shouldn't be the only structure capable of having self-aware substructures/observers.

Even in the case if MWI is false and the worst possible conclusion is true (no multiverse due to ours being the only consistent structure(why would this be the case baffles me)), there would be randomness in the conscious observers. The fact that you are conscious of a particular person with particular atributes is enough to qualify as random. Unless you believe that only you in the whole of existence is conscious and everybody else is a philosophical zombie (a full fledged solipsism) and nothing else exists outside of that, in which case, you could state genuine randomness doesn't exist, but how could you be so sure that your position is correct?

I wonder if any of this matters to us in any practical way. A  good PRNG with a state hidden from the observers' eyes is as good for practical use as genuine randomness.

Get TAOCP, read 3.3 and 3.5, and some Kolmogorov.

>>29>>28
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, Famous Jew

>>32
And do you agree with the JEW?

>>33
Should I?

BAMPU KIKE

>>34
Ye should.

Counter-bump to defeat the Jews.

JEWS