Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable.

From	Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable.
Date	2015-10-30 18:53 +0000
Organization	NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $23.95
Message-ID	<pan.2015.10.30.18.51.27@localhost.localdomain> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <n0or5i$btl$1@dont-email.me> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.27{10.41P.Seattle.2015}> <pan.2015.10.28.06.50.18@localhost.localdomain> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.28{0.22A.Seattle.2015}> <Y1HYx.22357$bG2.14757@fx26.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 05:48:40 -0400, benj wrote:

> 
> Hence the 
> definition of "passing statistical tests" to tell if something is 
> "random" is obviously inadequate.
>

Inadequate?  Obviously???!!!

Well, it may be obvious to you, but to the informed world the "passing
of statistical test" forms (in part) the VERY DEFINITION of randomness
(the other parts being algorithmic incompressibility and unpredictability). 

As I mentioned earlier, the "pseudo" in a pseudo-random sequence arises
because it is generated by a computer algorithm, and this violates
another part of the current mathematical definition of randomness (i.e.
algorithmic incompressibility).  But a pseudo-random sequence passes all
statistical tests and is therefore, for all intents and purposes, random
to the core.

The posters in this thread, myself excepted, are more mystically rather
than scientifically oriented.  They seek some "philosopher's stone" of
randomness, or at least claim that such a "philosopher's stone" does
not exist.

But daily practice around the globe proves otherwise.

Thread

Better Randomness ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 22:41 -0700
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-27 22:46 -0700
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 06:50 +0000
    Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:34 +0000
    Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:48 -0400
      Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 18:53 +0000
        Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 14:08 -0700
          Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 22:36 +0000
            Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 -0800
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 14:33 +0000
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:36 -0500
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:56 -0400
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:46 -0400
    QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 08:28 -0700
      Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:48 -0400
        RDRAND has numerous problems. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:35 -0700
      Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 16:17 +0000
        QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:50 -0700
        Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:44 +0000
          Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 18:01 +0000
            Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 18:39 +0000
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-10-29 19:38 +0100
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:14 +0000
        Re: Better Randomness ? ! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-29 13:10 -0700
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-29 21:36 +0000
        Re: Better Randomness ? ! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 17:24 -0700
          Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 21:55 -0400
            Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:12 +0000
            Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:18 +0000
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0400

csiph-web