Randomness, does it exist?

Does true randomness exist?
I mean, a random number generator on the computer uses some algorithm, it's not truely random.

Yes, but no, your computer's random number generator doesn't provide it.

Yes, rng exists. It's separate hardware.

Yes, in a box of chocolates

>>3
That's nice, but it doesn't answer the question. Hardware RNGs work by picking up environmental data, which makes the data they produce random enough for most (well, essentially all) purposes, but not necessarily completely random.
If you're looking for true randomness, you'd probably have to look for it in quantum effects.

However, the question is largely academic. RNGs don't even have to be hardware to be considered cryptographically secure, if that's what you're wondering about.

http://lotgd.tokyotosho.com/referral.php?r=The%20Sussman

>>5

Screw quantum effects! Hardware rng's are pretty damn good for practical uses. They pass all required statistical tests before being shipped.

>>7
The practical uses aren't under consideration here. Do you understand the difference between theory and practice?

>>8
M-M-M-M-MONSTER KILL!

>>8

Yes, I do. Theory doesn't exist.

Client: I need poker machine.
Developer: For that we need RNG. But in theory we can never...
Client: STFU! TL;DR Can you deliver or not?

>>10
This is why engineers are a cancer on society.

>>11

Famous underachievers' rationalization of their own failure to deliver.

>>10,12
Without theory, there is no such thing as practice. Without a proper understanding of the theory behind randomness and random number generation, it's impossible to use random number generators properly.
Considering the fact that all engineers are expected to do is follow the manual, you'd think they'd realise that, and you'd think they'd respect their betters.

random is realit infinity of posibilities but youl only see one
retry and it will never be the same

http://consc.net/notes/pick-a-number.html
Pick a Number between Zero and Infinity...

David J. Chalmers

From: dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: sci.math,sci.math.num-analysis
Subject: Re: call for votes: most & least boring numbers
Date: 17 Jan 90 20:40:02 GMT

In article <18311.25b44848@merrimack.edu>; ain14924@merrimack.edu writes:

      Reminds me of a friend of mine who claims that the number 17 is "the most random" number. His proof ran as follows: pick a number. It's not really as good a random number as 17, is it? (Invariable Answer: "Umm, well, no...")

This reminds me of a little experiment I did a couple of years ago. I stood on a busy street-corner in Oxford, and asked passers-by to "name a random number between zero and infinity." I was wondering what this "random" distribution would look like.

The results: (most common numbers first, out of about 150 responses in all):

    * 3 (11 people)
    * 7 (9 people)
    * 5 (8 people)
    * 12 (6 people)
    * 1, 4, 10, 77 (5 people each)
    * 2, 47, infinity-1 (4 people each)
    * 15, 17, 20, 27 (3 people each)
    * 18, 23, 26, 30, 42, 99 (2 people each)
    * 6, 13, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, thirteen more 2-digit numbers, twenty 3-digit numbers, twelve 4-digit numbers, one 5-digit number, one 6-digit number, four 7-digit numbers, one 8-digit number, one non-integer (328.39), one huge number (9.265.10^10^10). (1 person each)

Of course a uniform distribution is a priori impossible so I couldn't have expected that :-). Even a logarithmic distribution is impossible (it has infinite integral). Interestingly enough, this distribution, taken coarsely, was quite close to logarithmic up to 1000 or so. There were roughly the same number of 2-digit responses as 1-digit responses, and a few less 3-digit reponses. Then things fell off sharply, however.

Other interesting features:

    * 17 wasn't quite as "random" as might have been predicted.
    * Extreme frequency of the digit "7" all round.
    * Especially notable are the good performances of 77 and 47.
    * Poor performance of digit "8", also "6" and "9".
    * Both "very prime" (e.g. 17) and "very composite" (e.g. 12) numbers did well.

Then I could tell you about the "random word" experiment I did on Sydney harbour...perhaps another time.

DICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOODICK HOELS FUCK DICKSEIS SHITTPORNO SBUTTSEX PENISRES PIENTI GLEETODOO

select a random number between 1 and 4.



























you probably selected 3

choose a random number between 5-9









































You have aids.

waffle




Did I do it right?

unpredictable != random

>>13
hahaha, "betters"? Your theories do nothing. They are for ideal conditions which are never present in the real world. You would be living in a cave writing your theories on a wall if it weren't for engineers so fuck you faggot.

God put into motion this universe and sees the individual paths of all things. He also has a plan, which means he made all things go the way they are now. There is no random, only gods will. This all has a purpose. everything comes to a conclusion.


42

Read about Kolmogorov complexity, mathfags

>>23
Gee, I wonder if that's named after Andrey Kolmogorov, the Russian "mathfag"?

>>24

Possibly the biggest amount of fail anywhere on the internet

Professor Prigogine.

Since every single event happening in the universe is simply a reaction to another event, everything can theoretically be predicted.

Example, somebody throw dices against a wall. If one calculated the exact angle and strength at which the dices were thrown, one could predict the outcome of the dices. The same goes for cards shuffling: if somebody recorded the exact motions of your hands during the shuffling, he could probably tell you the order of the cards.

No event is truly random because every event can theoretically be predicted.

>>27
Source of your statements is Jesus.

>>27
Welcome to the 19th century. Now see if you can figure out why your post is bullshit in light of quantum physics.

>>29
this is what annoys me, this quantum mechanics stuff is blatant shit

take schrodinger's cat for example- the cat is supposed to be alive and dead at the same time until you measure it, then its forced to leave its (supposed) 'superstate' and appear dead or alive.

well, what if the fucking box rotted through or something? You cant see the cat, but either a dead cat or a live cat is going to fall out.

think it through next time

>>30 has never studied quantum physics

>>30

Idiot. More school, less Wikipedia.
Shit you wrote are an idiot's comprehension of quantum mechanics.
Quantum function is an abstraction. Do you know what that means?

>>30
you just proved quantum physics correct moron, untill you SEE the cat you said either a dead one or an alive one is in there

you havent seen it so you have no idea if its dead or alive, and so why does it have to be either? then a dead cat falls out, you've just seen it and you now know that its a dead cat, but it could of been alive moments before.  my explaination is shit i know but hopefully you get the point

>>30
>>33

Guize, let's straight something out, shall we?

Consciousness causes collapse? BULLSHIT!!!

The cat doesn't fall out dead (or alive) the moment you (consciously) see it. The quantum state of cat is determined regardless of you or anyone else cause supposed quantum wave function collapse.

The Schrodinger's thought experiment with cat in a box was conceived to point out that the conscious observer interpretation was incorrect.

Learn moar guize!

Wasn't there a joke going around that the cat couldn't collapse the field itself because it wasn't a human/no consciousness/not a christian?