Random number question?
Paul Allen Panks
version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
make it random, or only quasi-random?
Let's say I have a number between 1 and 35. What guarantee do I have that
the computer won't habitually (or accidentally) pick the same range of
numbers twice? Or the same individual number twice?
To find out, I wrote a simple QBasic program below:
1 CLEAR
5 CLS : PRINT "Random Number test"
10 FOR x = 1 TO 10
20 RANDOMIZE TIMER
30 i = INT(RND * 35) + 1
40 PRINT i
45 NEXT x
The program was run three separate times, with the following results:
Test #1
Random Number test
27
25
17
31
24
18
27
34
23
22
Test #2
Random Number test
32
29
21
35
29
22
32
4
27
27
Test #3
Random Number test
21
18
10
24
17
11
21
28
16
16
Ah oh...the last two tests repeated the last two sets of numbers not once
but TWICE! That's not good!
Now for the same program in HLA:
program random;
#include ("console.hhf");
#include ("stdlib.hhf");
#include ("math.hhf");
static
i:int32:=0;
x:int32:=0;
begin random;
console.cls();
stdout.put("Random number test",nl);
start:
add(1,x);
rand.randomize();
rand.urange(1,35); // pick a random number, 1 through 35
mov(eax,i); // move it into i variable
mov(i,eax); // set i to eax value
stdout.put(i,nl);
if(x<10) then
jmp start;
endif;
end random;
The HLA version gives the following 3 results:
Test #1
Random number test
29
24
11
19
22
8
27
33
27
28
Test #2
Random number test
19
4
32
30
23
34
24
20
20
30
Test #3
Random number test
35
26
29
17
26
18
33
29
19
1
Some repeats, but not as bad as before.
Is there a way to truly limit the number of repeats during a set of random
number generation? I can foresee a lot of random numbers in my own mind,
but they have to be truly, truly random for the random number generator to
be doing a good job.
Any ideas as to why both sets of random number generators seem different
in functionality?
Sincerely,
Paul Allen Panks
dun...@gmail.com
--
pa...@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
T.M. Sommers
> How does HLA's random number generator differ from traditional BASIC's
> version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
> especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
> make it random, or only quasi-random?
The random number generators in most libraries are pseudo-random,
not truly random.
> Let's say I have a number between 1 and 35. What guarantee do I have that
> the computer won't habitually (or accidentally) pick the same range of
> numbers twice? Or the same individual number twice?
>
> To find out, I wrote a simple QBasic program below:
>
> 1 CLEAR
> 5 CLS : PRINT "Random Number test"
> 10 FOR x = 1 TO 10
> 20 RANDOMIZE TIMER
> 30 i = INT(RND * 35) + 1
> 40 PRINT i
> 45 NEXT x
You should only seed the RNG once. Doing it repeatedly may make
the results less random.
You cannot say that it is not good just because a number repeats.
In your example, one should expect 1 in 35 numbers to repeat on
the average. To really see how good a RNG is, you must run some
statistical tests. Google, or see a good book on numerical
methods or simulation or cryptography. Knuth and Numerical
Recipes are places to start.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
Auric__
>Paul Allen Panks wrote:
>> How does HLA's random number generator differ from traditional BASIC's
>> version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
>> especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
>> make it random, or only quasi-random?
>
>The random number generators in most libraries are pseudo-random,
>not truly random.
Just curious - can you provide an example that is *not* pseudo-random? I
don't think I've ever seen one (not that I looked hard, or recently).
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
It is a thing that takes longer than 44 seconds to explain.
Michael Mattias
> don't think I've ever seen one (not that I looked hard, or recently).
Um, think about it: if it is generated or calculated, how can it be other
than pseudo-random?
I believe the National Security Agency gets the random random number
sequences it uses for encryption by reading the background noise from outer
space.
I haven't seen an 'off-the-shelf" add-on for any programming language to do
that, but maybe a Google search can point one to the required hardware ( a
radio telescope?) and software.
MCM
Robert Redelmeier
> Just curious - can you provide an example that is *not* pseudo-random?
I believe one of the Intel chipsets (northbridge) has a port
with a thermal diode[s] on it. This will be truly random, but
will probably have limited bandwidth.
-- Robert
Randall Hyde
"Paul Allen Panks" <pa...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:cb5u35$plp$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
> How does HLA's random number generator differ from traditional BASIC's
> version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
> especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
> make it random, or only quasi-random?
Well, *all* random number generators are "pseudo-random", by
definition as they all use an algorithm to compute the next
random number (i.e., the result can be predicted).
HLA's rand.randomize function reads the Pentium's timestamp
counter (if available on the CPU) to reseed the value. While
this starts a new sequence, arguably it is not random as the
timestamp counter simply increments with each clock cycle.
There are two random number generator algorithms found in
the rand library: a traditional modulo-based algorithm
(which isn't bad at all) and a table-based algorithm from
Knuth (which is actually quite good, with respect to randomness).
Having said this, however, I'd point out that I've never
run the usual statistical tests to determine the quality of
the random number generators.
>
> Let's say I have a number between 1 and 35. What guarantee do I have that
> the computer won't habitually (or accidentally) pick the same range of
> numbers twice? Or the same individual number twice?
There are a suite of tests you can run on random number generators to
determine
exactly these qualities. As I've said, I've not actually run those test
myself. But I
trust the sources of the algorithms I've used in the rand package, so I'm
not too worried
about degenerate behavior (unless you pick a really weird starting seed
value, which
I don't do).
Couple of comments: the rng will always pick the same range of values :-)
And it will pick the same number twice, even in a row, on occasion. The
definition
of a random number generator doesn't prevent this (indeed, it predicts this
will
happen). If you want to guarantee that you get a unique sequence of numbers
between 1 and 35, use the rand.deal iterator in the rand package.
BTW, I hope you're calling rand.range to limit your random numbers between
1 and 35. The traditional way (computing (rand mod 35)+1 generates very
bad results because the L.O. bits of a random number generator are rarely as
random as the whole number (see Knuth Volume Two for details). The
rand.range
number creates a random number in some range by using various bits through
the normal 32-bit random number that the generators emit.
"Equally likely" means exactly that. But the problem with this
code is exactly what I mentioned earlier - the (n mod m)+1 algorithm
for generating random numbers within some specified range is known
to generate less than random sequences. It's not BASIC, it's the mod
algorithm you're using. This is why I stuck rand.range (and rand.urange)
in the HLA standard library, to provide a better solution for people who
don't understand the inner workings of random number generators.
Repeats are perfectly reasonable in a random number generator.
As I said, if you don't want any repeats at all, consider using
the rand.deal iterator.
By the way, assuming a perfect even distribution of random numbers,
if you choose ten numbers out of 35, there is a one in 3.5 chance of
getting a repeated number. Depending on which bits rand.urange
decides to choose, this ratio is probably even worse. So getting
repeats in the examples above is actually expected.
>
> Is there a way to truly limit the number of repeats during a set of random
> number generation? I can foresee a lot of random numbers in my own mind,
> but they have to be truly, truly random for the random number generator to
> be doing a good job.
>
Well, there are very few *truly* random number generators out there (most of
them
are hardware devices that measure alpha decay of some radioactive isotope).
HLA's is far from the best, but it is relatively fast. Statistically *good*
random
numbers are expensive to compute, not something you'd want to use in most
games (okay, it's probably good for a text-based adventure:-) ).
> Any ideas as to why both sets of random number generators seem different
> in functionality?
Sure, they use completely different algorithms.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Dunny
Paul Allen Panks <pa...@sdf.lonestar.org> typed:
{random numbers repeating}
If you're generating a list of random numbers, then you *will* get repeating...
at random.
If you want to avoid repeats, I personally would create and fill a list of all
the numbers (in your case 1 - 35) and then when asked, remove one of those
numbers from the list (at random) and return that. When the list is found to be
empty, re-stock it and repeat the process. It's a lot less likely that you'll
get the same number twice (unless you end up with the last number of the list
being chosen as the first of the new list), but it won't also be as close to
"random" as you may want it to be.
Hope that helps,
D.
wolfgang kern
Paul Allen Panks asked about Random figures.
Regardless of the algorithm,
a piece of hardware/software never can achieve true randomness.
Except a faulty chip or the ill written guessing code from M$,
but that's another story. :)
The only way to get random figures are external events,
like the time (either in clock-ticks or milliSeconds or ..)
when a key is pressed
when the mouse is moving
or the noise from
a far away located microphone
the size of Beth's last post ;) [sorry Beth, not meant as 'noise']
the count of nasty words in this NG... (not good, almost constant)
Algorithms will produce pseudo-random numbers which are mainly
based on tables created when the program starts with the 'seed'
taken from the lowest significant bits of any system timer,
and altered by the time-stamp of any external event.
__
wolfgang
The Wannabee
<now...@nevernet.at>:
Hehe. Now we get into philosophy. There will never be any Random events in
the whole universe, ever. So Random is completly illusion :-) Everything
has a reason, that "can" be traced. Or did you convert to religion while I
wasn't looking Wolf?
:-Ø)
>
> __
> wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sender med M2, Operas revolusjonerende e-postprogram: http://www.opera.com/
The User
program language has to be able to call win32 api). One of function I used
often is QueryPerformanceCount function. Do something like
dandomizer timer
n= rnd * 100
for i=1 to n
a=exp(exp(-1.11))
next i
QueryPerformanceCount MyCount
newrnd = (MyCount mod 1000) /1000.0
"Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote in message
news:9c5dd0ttpjltkpvo2...@4ax.com...
CryptWolf
"Auric__" <not.m...@email.address> wrote in message
>news:9c5dd0ttpjltkpvo2...@4ax.com...
>
> >Paul Allen Panks wrote:
> >> How does HLA's random number generator differ from traditional BASIC's
> >> version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
> >> especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
> >> make it random, or only quasi-random?
> >
> >The random number generators in most libraries are pseudo-random,
> >not truly random.
>
> Just curious - can you provide an example that is *not* pseudo-random? I
> don't think I've ever seen one (not that I looked hard, or recently).
The random bit generator I designed several years ago produces random
bits though it is somewhat slow. It is based on the noise from a reverse
biased zener diode and amplified. It is slow enough that I used my old C-64
to gather output from it. Otherwise, with proper shielding, it generates
true
random numbers.
There is a few so called random bit or number generators in a number of
chips.
The problem is you don't know how well it is shielded from outside noise
that
might bias the output. One random number generator scheme I analyzed only
produced about 10 to 20 percent random numbers. The rest of the output was
noise from the computer. Not all hardware generators are alike and not very
many are good. For most games, these would be good enough, but not
for generating cryptographic keys and similar security related stuff.
Look at the source code for PGP or GPG to see how to get some random bits
from various sources in a computer. It is very hard to get true random
numbers
out of computers that are decidedly not random.
All "random" number generators in programming languages are based
on a linear congruential generator or similar mathematical construct that
produces what appears to be random numbers. Thus the term psuedo-random
number generator or PRNG. Even if you use the timer to seed your PRNG, you
still only have about 84,000 starting points. Applied Cryptography 1st or
2nd Ed
has a chart with linear congruential generator constants that meet various
requirements. If you want true cross platform compatibility, you'll need to
make
your own PRNG that works on all the platforms you intend to write for.
I probably should have spread this out into a few posts, but if you are
really following the whole thread, it won't matter.
CryptWolf
Spam Killer
>
>a piece of hardware/software never can achieve true randomness.
Well, the reason for that is that you don't really want true random
numbers from software, but numbers from a distribution (Uniform in
most cases), which means that every number is equally likely to be
picked, to simulate real life situations, like a card game for
instance. If you give every card a number and choose 'em with an
uniformly distributed number you will come very near to what happens
when you actually play a card game. Part Two of Knuth is *the*
reference on random numbers. If you read it there will be *nothing*
you don't know about them.
--
There is a big difference between bending over and kneeling down.
--Frank Zappa
Phil Carmody
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 03:03:57 -0400, T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
> >Paul Allen Panks wrote:
> >> How does HLA's random number generator differ from traditional BASIC's
> >> version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
> >> especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
> >> make it random, or only quasi-random?
> >
> >The random number generators in most libraries are pseudo-random,
> >not truly random.
>
> Just curious - can you provide an example that is *not* pseudo-random? I
> don't think I've ever seen one (not that I looked hard, or recently).
Any crypto library worth its salt will not touch rand()
but will use /dev/random or /dev/urandom instead.
These get entropy from all kinds of places that are non-algorithmic.
Phil
--
1st bug in MS win2k source code found after 20 minutes: scanline.cpp
2nd and 3rd bug found after 10 more minutes: gethost.c
Both non-exploitable. (The 2nd/3rd ones might be, depending on the CRTL)
Phil Carmody
> "Paul Allen Panks" <pa...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
> news:cb5u35$plp$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
> > How does HLA's random number generator differ from traditional BASIC's
> > version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
> > especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
> > make it random, or only quasi-random?
>
> Well, *all* random number generators are "pseudo-random", by
> definition as they all use an algorithm to compute the next
> random number (i.e., the result can be predicted).
Nonsense. There's bucketloads of entropy available to the system;
you just have to use it.
> Well, there are very few *truly* random number generators out there (most of
> them
> are hardware devices that measure alpha decay of some radioactive isotope).
Closer to the truth at least.
Most of them rely on electronic noise - either drift in clocks or noise
at a gate. It's possible to implement using these very badly too --
quite recently the infamous RAND million digits file was discovered to
have an entropy rate of at most ~0.99998, maybe less, I believe, i.e.
several hundred bits of predictability was found. See comp.compression
about 2 weeks back for more info.
wolfgang kern
"The Wannabee" ... :
| Hehe. Now we get into philosophy. There will never be any Random events in
| the whole universe, ever. So Random is completly illusion :-) Everything
| has a reason, that "can" be traced. Or did you convert to religion while I
| wasn't looking Wolf?
Yes if all facts are known, there would be no coincidence.
But impossible due to the universe seems to be infinitive in all aspects.
The only god I may praise sometimes is Lord Logic himself.
(due OT: cross-posting removed)
__
wolfgang
Auric__
>Just curious - can you provide an example that is *not* pseudo-random? I
>don't think I've ever seen one (not that I looked hard, or recently).
Let me clarify/correct: I've never heard of a non-pseudo-random RNG that
wasn't hardware-based. (Yes, I knew of those before this thread, was
just thinking software.)
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
Maybe we can gangbang the Tooth Fairy to death for good measure.
The Wannabee
<now...@nevernet.at>:
>
> "The Wannabee" ... :
> Yes if all facts are known, there would be no coincidence.
That an awsome thought, I think. Even more awsome than any religion. It
means, we make sense Wolfgang. Doesnt it ? It mean that all things, even
if not easy to see sometimes, makes perfect sense...... Maybe we can
remove "perfect".
> But impossible due to the universe seems to be infinitive in all aspects.
Hmm. If all things have a reason, and such makes sense, then it cannot
be infinite? Infinite, doesnt make much sense. You say : "seem infinite".
Infinite cannot be. Infinite is possible only if there is random. Or maybe
it repeat infinitely ? Infinte is not logical in my brain at least.
> The only god I may praise sometimes is Lord Logic himself.
Have you ever thought that if we could have a picture of all possible
things, in the universe on our PC screen, because of resolution, and color
combination, there would be only a finite possibilities, even in 32 bit ?
Or is this a short circuit in my brain ? I am very tired...
I like things beeing logic. But I _can_ live it out full time. I am not
married :-Ø)
> (due OT: cross-posting removed)
Good idea. I hate posting elsewhere, and even more so in the basic group.
T.M. Sommers
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 01:01:08 -0700, I wrote:
>
>>Just curious - can you provide an example that is *not* pseudo-random? I
>>don't think I've ever seen one (not that I looked hard, or recently).
>
> Let me clarify/correct: I've never heard of a non-pseudo-random RNG that
> wasn't hardware-based. (Yes, I knew of those before this thread, was
> just thinking software.)
Neither have I. I said 'most' simply because there might be
something I do not know about.
Simon Hosie
>> Let me clarify/correct: I've never heard of a non-pseudo-random RNG
>> that wasn't hardware-based. (Yes, I knew of those before this thread,
>> was just thinking software.)
T.M. Sommers wrote:
> Neither have I. I said 'most' simply because there might be something
> I do not know about.
You'd be playing silly-buggers with definitions if you did find one.
All software depends on hardware to run, and if that software finds a
way of deriving non-deterministic values then it'll be the hardware that
gets the blame/credit for being able to provide the facility.
Sulaiman Chang
i am kinda interested with your topic about random number.
so, let me define what is random number first!
when you want to use the word "random", then you must allow it to have the
power to choose WHATSOEVER number from the infinite numbers.
negative infinity ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... positive infinity.
let say, if you set a range of number from 0 to 35 and you want it to
generate random numbers. That is wrong because you already set a limit to
the number it can chooses from. If IT HAS NO POWER to chooses whatsoever
number, this means, it has to follow a set of rulez, a set of in range
numbers AND IT WILL BE A CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE WORD "RANDOM" coz
RANDOM NUMBERS means WHATSOEVER NUMBERS.
AND
if you are able to program a software/script to generate random number, this
simply means, the software will follow what you already set or programmed to
generate (so called) random numbers. The software/script or PC still have NO
POWER to choose WHATSOEVER numbers from the infinity pool of numbers. So
this simply means the generated (so called) random numbers still cannot be
called "RANDOM NUMBERS" only if you understand my LOGIC.
so, does RANDOM still exists!
RANDOM is one of the power that God possesses. When you want to call it God,
then you must give God [TOTAL POWER] otherwise it will be a God with a lack
of authority and power (which we don't call it "GOD") Can you call it God if
it cannot does this and that, cannot make you come back alive, cannot make
heaven and hell, cannot make judgement day and so on.
let say if you are a GOOD person, and God wants you to enter hell,
Can God put you into hell eventough you are a good person? (Scroll down for
answer).
sincerely,
Sulaiman Chang bin Abdullah
[YES]
if you answer yes, this mean you yourself can define what is God and you
understand the power of God and you of course understand what i am talking
about.
[NO]
if you answer no, basically you havent be able to define what is God.
what is God's powers? take your time to think and i wish and pray for you
that hopefully that you will be guided by truth.
Alex McDonald
news:40d84...@news.tm.net.my...
> Hi newsgroup,
> i am kinda interested with your topic about random number.
>
> so, let me define what is random number first!
> when you want to use the word "random", then you must allow it to have the
> power to choose WHATSOEVER number from the infinite numbers.
>
> negative infinity ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... positive infinity.
>
> let say, if you set a range of number from 0 to 35 and you want it to
> generate random numbers. That is wrong because you already set a limit to
> the number it can chooses from. If IT HAS NO POWER to chooses whatsoever
> number, this means, it has to follow a set of rulez, a set of in range
> numbers AND IT WILL BE A CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE WORD "RANDOM" coz
>
> RANDOM NUMBERS means WHATSOEVER NUMBERS.
Ouch. I don't think so. It's possible to generate random binary numbers (0
and 1). If you can't predict the next 0 or 1, then its random. You've
limited the numbers to integers too; why not specify rationals? Or
irrationals? Here's a better definition (from http://mathworld.wolfram.com)
"A random number is a number chosen as if by chance from some specified
distribution such that selection of a large set of these numbers reproduces
the underlying distribution. Almost always, such numbers are also required
to be independent, so that there are no correlations between successive
numbers." See that bit about "from some specified distribution"? Says
nothing about negative infinity to positive infinity.
>
> AND
Or? Looks like a different topic to me.
>
> if you are able to program a software/script to generate random number,
this
> simply means, the software will follow what you already set or programmed
to
> generate (so called) random numbers. The software/script or PC still have
NO
> POWER to choose WHATSOEVER numbers from the infinity pool of numbers. So
> this simply means the generated (so called) random numbers still cannot be
> called "RANDOM NUMBERS" only if you understand my LOGIC.
>
> so, does RANDOM still exists!
> RANDOM is one of the power that God possesses. When you want to call it
God,
> then you must give God [TOTAL POWER] otherwise it will be a God with a
lack
> of authority and power (which we don't call it "GOD") Can you call it God
if
> it cannot does this and that, cannot make you come back alive, cannot make
> heaven and hell, cannot make judgement day and so on.
and the definition doesn't say anything about God either.
>
> let say if you are a GOOD person, and God wants you to enter hell,
> Can God put you into hell eventough you are a good person? (Scroll down
for
> answer).
So the whole of your argument kinda fizzles out; somewhere around para 2 I'd
say. No need to scroll down on this one.
>
> sincerely,
> Sulaiman Chang bin Abdullah
===snipped
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Derek Ross
> i am kinda interested with your topic about random number.
>
> so, let me define what is random number first!
> when you want to use the word "random", then you must allow it to have the
> power to choose WHATSOEVER number from the infinite numbers.
>
> negative infinity ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... positive infinity.
>
> let say, if you set a range of number from 0 to 35 and you want it to
> generate random numbers. That is wrong because you already set a limit to
> the number it can chooses from. If IT HAS NO POWER to chooses whatsoever
> number, this means, it has to follow a set of rulez, a set of in range
> numbers AND IT WILL BE A CONTRADICTION AGAINST THE WORD "RANDOM" coz
>
> RANDOM NUMBERS means WHATSOEVER NUMBERS.
The trouble with this definition is that if we follow it exactly, the
chance of getting a number small enough to fit into the universe when
written out is practically zero, since there is an infinite quantity
of numbers that are too big to write out in the universe but only a
finite quantity that are small enough to be written out. That implies
that when a WHATSOEVER number is chosen, it is far, far, far more
likely to be an unwritable number than a writeable one. Thus this
definition of random numbers may be useful in Heaven but it is
worthless on Earth. Luckily most of us are free to decide for
ourselves what we mean by "random" and we can choose a definition
which returns useful numbers from a finite range such as 0 to 35, if
we wish.
Cheers
Derek
wolfgang kern
"The Wannabee" wrote:
| > Yes if all facts are known, there would be no coincidence.
| That an awsome thought, I think. Even more awsome than any religion. It
| means, we make sense Wolfgang. Doesnt it ? It mean that all things, even
| if not easy to see sometimes, makes perfect sense...... Maybe we can
| remove "perfect".
Everthing makes sense,
and even the worst of idiots around on this planet are there for
a reason, the universe wont be complete without them :)
| > But impossible due to the universe seems to be infinitive in all aspects.
|
| Hmm. If all things have a reason, and such makes sense, then it cannot
| be infinite? Infinite, doesnt make much sense. You say : "seem infinite".
| Infinite cannot be. Infinite is possible only if there is random. Or maybe
| it repeat infinitely ? Infinte is not logical in my brain at least.
As all human brains are limited to a certain size, infinity is out
of imagination for everybody, but looking at the universe, all yet
known facts point into never ending (never started) cycling without
repeating ...
So my logic tells me it must be infinitive,
even far beyond my ability to imagine.
| > The only god I may praise sometimes is Lord Logic himself.
| Have you ever thought that if we could have a picture of all possible
| things, in the universe on our PC screen, because of resolution, and color
| combination, there would be only a finite possibilities, even in 32 bit ?
| Or is this a short circuit in my brain ? I am very tired...
UTF16 char 221Eh seems to be the only way to express infinity on a PC.
| I like things beeing logic. But I _can_ live it out full time. I am not
| married :-Ø)
Lucky one, I'm not married either (since decades).
__
wolfgang
CryptWolf
> i am kinda interested with your topic about random number.
>
> so, let me define what is random number first!
> when you want to use the word "random", then you must allow it to have the
> power to choose WHATSOEVER number from the infinite numbers.
>
> negative infinity ...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3 ... positive infinity.
Not true. You don't understand what random is.
Random for computers is usually defined as a non-reproducible sequence.
If you are generating keys for cryptographic algorithms, you usually have
to add the property of being unpredictable. A simple dictionary definition
is
without plan or order.
Usually the only time you have to deal with infinity is in pure math theory.
For practical uses, you need to have limits.
To show how your idea fails, I have a random bit generator based on
the noise generated by a semiconductor junction. Bits are simply on or off.
There is no sign associated with the output yet the output can be proven
to be random by all practical tests for randomness. In fact they can even be
shown to be unpredictable and useful for secure applications.
CryptWolf
The Wannabee
<now...@nevernet.at>:
>
> "The Wannabee" wrote:
>
> Everthing makes sense,
> and even the worst of idiots around on this planet are there for
> a reason, the universe wont be complete without them :)
Thanks for the complement. I feel so appreciated everytime I hear that. :-)
> As all human brains are limited to a certain size, infinity is out
> of imagination for everybody, but looking at the universe, all yet
> known facts point into never ending (never started) cycling without
> repeating ...
> So my logic tells me it must be infinitive,
> even far beyond my ability to imagine.
Seem like a contradiction to me. If we cant even imagine something, how
can it be logical, much less make sense. But this doesnt mean you are
wrong or anything, just that my answer, if asked, seriously, would be: I
dont know. Is there a God ? I dont know. Is there not a God. I dont know.
What would be your guess ? - That depends on what time you ask.
> UTF16 char 221Eh seems to be the only way to express infinity on a PC.
> Lucky one, I'm not married either (since decades).
Lucky too.
Sulaiman Chang
| To: Alex McDonald |
---------------------
i think we need to clarify this first
is random number is a set of numbers or just a number.
first question
==========
eg. 1 -> 35, pick a number. the first pick resulted 5, so does this "5" is
random number? or you need to have a set of picked number to call it "random
number" eg 5,7,23,9,34,24. If it is a set of picked number, can you tell me
what is the size of those picked number to be (so called) random number?
second question
============
according to the maths website you mentioned,
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomNumber.html
In its second paragraph, (i thought you read the whole articel :p )
> It is impossible to produce an arbitrarily long string of random digits
and prove it is random.
third question
==========
you said, if i cannot predict the next 0 or 1, then it is random. so i give
you the situation below:
let say you specify a range number from 1 to 35 and tell the computer to
generate the first (so called) random number, you obtained the first number
as "22",
well, i ask 35 persons coming, each of them predict a number from 1 to 35,
so one of them will certainly have a correct answer therefore THIS break
your specification for a number to be (so) called "random"
------------------
| To: Derek Ross |
------------------
>Thus this definition of random numbers may be useful in Heaven but it is
worthless on Earth.
this defination of random numbers is useful in earth, it can let you have
the imagination on the power of God.
you heard people said the God is One, NO START and NO END, and if u see
below
Negative Infinity <--- ... -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ... ---> Positive
Infinity
(NO START) <-------------------------------------------> (NO END)
you don't know where the number start, and you will never know the number
end. It is just toooo BIG and SMALL to be written out. A TRUE defination of
WORD will guide us to TRUTH. LOGIC will examine the TRUTH and you will reach
the REALITY in the end.
-----------------
| To: CryptWolf |
-----------------
you said:
> A simple dictionary definition is without plan or order.
when there is NO PLAN, { NO PLAN } is a PLAN.
when there is NO ORDER, { NO ORDER } is an ORDER.
> unpredictable
i predict your action might be unpredicatable upon receiving this news.
(i thought i just give you a prediction)
you said:
> yet the output can be proven to be random by all practical tests for
randomness.
how can you prove a set of number is random. You can ONLY prove it UNLESS
you have the POWER to know which set of number is good random and which one
is bad random. So, DOES IT STILL RANDOM NUMBERS IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO
KNOW WHICH IS GOOD RANDOM AND WHICH ONE IS BAD RANDOM, WHICH ONE IS RANDOM
AND WHICH ONE IS NOT?
Alex McDonald
> x---------------------
> | To: Alex McDonald |
> ---------------------
>
> i think we need to clarify this first
> is random number is a set of numbers or just a number.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and try to answer.
However, SHOUTING ABOUT GOD on the basis of this argument doesn't help.
Religion and science answer different questions; trying to see the face of
God in questions of randomness is futile.
>
> first question
> ==========
> eg. 1 -> 35, pick a number. the first pick resulted 5, so does this "5" is
> random number?
Randomness is a property of a sequence of numbers; single numbers do not
have "randomness". The method of generating the number 5 may be random
though.
> or you need to have a set of picked number to call it "random
> number" eg 5,7,23,9,34,24. If it is a set of picked number, can you tell
me
> what is the size of those picked number to be (so called) random number?
I don't understand the question. However, given that we're constraining the
number between 1 and 35, then, _in the long run_ any sequence of numbers you
may care to pick is likely to appear in the output. However, the next number
in the sequence should not be predictable by looking at the sequence already
produced; there should be on the average, over a large run of guesses, a 1
in 35 probability of getting it right.
>
> second question
> ============
> according to the maths website you mentioned,
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomNumber.html
> In its second paragraph, (i thought you read the whole articel :p )
> > It is impossible to produce an arbitrarily long string of random digits
> and prove it is random.
And? Impossibility of proof as the proof of God is a common and specious
argument, which the unscientific religious often misunderstand. It is
possible to show the opposite, that a given arbitrarily long string of
digits is not random. What that article says is "There are tests from
non-randomness; there are no tests for randomness", not "There are no tests
for randomness; therefore randomness doesn't exist". Absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence (anon).
>
> third question
> ==========
> you said, if i cannot predict the next 0 or 1, then it is random. so i
give
> you the situation below:
> let say you specify a range number from 1 to 35 and tell the computer to
> generate the first (so called) random number, you obtained the first
number
> as "22",
>
> well, i ask 35 persons coming, each of them predict a number from 1 to 35,
> so one of them will certainly have a correct answer therefore THIS break
> your specification for a number to be (so) called "random"
Ouch again. The chance of 35 out of 35 people guessing it is not 1. It's
close, but no cigar. Let's try it with a coin, which flips heads or tails,
and it comes up heads. I ask two people to guess what I flipped; the chance
of either of them saying heads is 3 in 4, not 1.
Here's a better test; what's the next number after 5,7,23,9,34,24 (your
numbers)? You've a 1 in 35 chance of guessing it right if the number
generator is random.
===snipped
As the rest is meaningless.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Sulaiman Chang
| To : Alex McDonald |
----------------------
Em....
Did i shout? the CAP letter i use it just for having the BOLD effect coz the
format i am using is plain text, em.. if that hurts you, i am sorry... :((
ok, since you don't want me to talk about God here, nevermind, we can skip
it, coz there is no reason for me to make you unhappy... :)) i want you to
be happy... :)) (have a smile ok!)
you said:
> Religion and science answer different questions
i want to give you my opinion but i know you won't like it so we skip
them... :))
if you wish to know my opinion, tell me, i will share with you.
you said:
> Randomness is a property of a sequence of numbers;
so could you tell me, how much number should exists inside the sequence of
numbers (if i want to call it random numbers)?
5,7,23,9,34,24 (6 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
5,7,23 (3 numbers only, could i still call it random numbers?)
5,7,23,9,34,24,4,1,16, (9 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
5,5,5,5 {4 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
1,2,3,4,5 {5 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
you said:
> Impossibility of proof as the proof of God is a common and specious
argument
eg.
i said, i have six dollar in my pocket.
to proof it, you might either BELIEVE,
------ 1. i really got six dollar inside my pocket.
------ 2. i don't have six dollar inside my pocket.
if you don't believe the 1 or 2, then you won't ask me to take out the money
from my pocket.
if you don't believe the 1 or 2, then you might just ignore me coz the proof
it not important to you. but you will therefore DON"T KNOW the TRUTH
(whether i really have 6 dollar or not).
for a blind person, what you can't see is what you can see. :)
i like this coin, so it comes up heads,
i ask mr.A to guess heads.
and i ask mr.B to guess tails.
so, one of them will have a correct guess. one of them will predict correct.
one last thing,
if you are able to think before you think, then i will believe that you have
the power to create random :)
sincerely,
Sulaiman Chang :))
Alex McDonald
> ----------------------
> | To : Alex McDonald |
> ----------------------
> Em....
> Did i shout? the CAP letter i use it just for having the BOLD effect coz
the
> format i am using is plain text, em.. if that hurts you, i am sorry... :((
You may wish to read about Usenet posting etiquette, or netiquette. Do a
google search.
>
> ok, since you don't want me to talk about God here, nevermind, we can skip
> it, coz there is no reason for me to make you unhappy... :)) i want you to
> be happy... :)) (have a smile ok!)
Wrong groups, and off-topic. See netiquette. In fact, this part of the
random number thread is probably off-topic, and this is my last post on the
subject.
> you said:
> > Randomness is a property of a sequence of numbers;
> so could you tell me, how much number should exists inside the sequence of
> numbers (if i want to call it random numbers)?
>
> 5,7,23,9,34,24 (6 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
> 5,7,23 (3 numbers only, could i still call it random numbers?)
> 5,7,23,9,34,24,4,1,16, (9 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
> 5,5,5,5 {4 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
> 1,2,3,4,5 {5 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
They are not provably random, remember; _you_ pointed that out in your last
post. We can only prove that they are non-random. If you had said "1,2,3,4,5
could I call it non-random" I would have said yes. You keep getting the
wrong end of the stick here.
>
> you said:
> > Impossibility of proof as the proof of God is a common and specious
> argument
> eg.
> i said, i have six dollar in my pocket.
> to proof it, you might either BELIEVE,
> ------ 1. i really got six dollar inside my pocket.
> ------ 2. i don't have six dollar inside my pocket.
> if you don't believe the 1 or 2, then you won't ask me to take out the
money
> from my pocket.
>
> if you don't believe the 1 or 2, then you might just ignore me coz the
proof
> it not important to you. but you will therefore DON"T KNOW the TRUTH
> (whether i really have 6 dollar or not).
>
Eh?
> for a blind person, what you can't see is what you can see. :)
Double eh? What's that got to do with the price of fish?
> i like this coin, so it comes up heads,
> i ask mr.A to guess heads.
> and i ask mr.B to guess tails.
> so, one of them will have a correct guess. one of them will predict
correct.
Good grief, get some simple maths and logic under your belt before shooting
from the hip like this. You're way off base. Some advice; don't ever go to a
casino.
> one last thing,
> if you are able to think before you think, then i will believe that you
have
> the power to create random :)
>
Well, here we go; I'll expand pi out to as many digits as you like. There! I
have the power to create random, and to think before I think, whatever that
means.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Phil Carmody
> you [Alex] said:
> > Randomness is a property of a sequence of numbers;
However, that's too little context. Alex was trying (I think) to imply that
(unless you take a Chaitin/Kolmogarov view (which I would bet that you don't))
it's not the _numbers_ that should be judged as random or not, only a source
can be. A sequence of numbers from a source that can be judged as random
(criteria may vary quite wildly though) may be called random.
> so could you tell me, how much number should exists inside the sequence of
> numbers (if i want to call it random numbers)?
>
> 5,7,23,9,34,24 (6 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
If they came from a random source, then yes, else no.
> 5,7,23 (3 numbers only, could i still call it random numbers?)
If they came from a random source, then yes, else no.
> 5,7,23,9,34,24,4,1,16, (9 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
If they came from a random source, then yes, else no.
> 5,5,5,5 {4 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
If they came from a random source, then yes, else no.
1 in ~54 truly random 6-sided die rolls will be part of such a foursome.
> 1,2,3,4,5 {5 numbers here, could i call it random numbers?)
If they came from a random source, then yes, else no.
1 in ~260 truly random 6-sided die rolls will be part of such a fivesome.
If you wish to have a discussion in the context of the kolmogorov/chaitin
view of randomness, then you'll probably keep the alt.lang.asm dudes and
dudettes happier if you do it over on comp.compression instead, as it
can get a bit deep (and boring to most).
Alex McDonald
news:87wu1y8...@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
===snipped
Removed x-posting
OK, I'm breaking my rule about not posting further on this subject, but this
(poor image PDF, good content) explains some of the problems & terms;
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/b/bennetc/Onrandom.pdf. Later research
(this one's dated 1979) may have superceded some of this, but its a good
intro.
If we could only get the warring xASM camps and camp followers to cut down
on the "mine's bigger than yours" and the yards of meaningless swearing and
drunken drivel, then this kind of posting would look a lot more OT. Sigh...
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Phil Carmody
> "Phil Carmody" <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:87wu1y8...@nonospaz.fatphil.org...
> ===snipped
>
> Removed x-posting
>
> OK, I'm breaking my rule about not posting further on this subject, but this
> (poor image PDF, good content) explains some of the problems & terms;
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/b/bennetc/Onrandom.pdf. Later research
> (this one's dated 1979) may have superceded some of this, but its a good
> intro.
Superseded? Who would want to follow that, unless to negatively critique it.
It probably does more to confuse than to clarify. A bit like Chaitin
himself, in that regard. And if one's beign pedantic, it's wrong in places
too. A bit like Chaitin in that respect too.
Sulaiman Chang
i got one test now, if you able to run it, i will be convinced that, random
numbers can be generated.
if you able to get 2 or more identical computer and feed them with same
seed, and let them have same "FACTORS" that be able to modify or affect the
generated random numbers. And if, IF they under such "identical" condition
and be able to generate DIFFERENT set of random numbers, then i will be
convinced that random numbers can be generated.
i believe, the identical factors test will result, SAME set of random
numbers.
2 set of "identical" random numbers will show that:
i can predict (exactly) computer generated random numbers as long as i get
hold the "factors", eg. the script, the execution time, the seed and ...
i can make the dice turn to whatever number, as long as i know, the distance
between the dice and desk, the angle to drop, the power to drop it, how
should i hold the dice, how should i drop the drop from top... and etc.
and if test able to create 2 identical set of random numbers, does random
numbers still exists?
sincerely,
Sulaiman Chang
Sulaiman Chang
let say, if you are able to get 2 "identical" computer to run your (random
generator) program/script and provide them with "identical" factor(s) that
will modify or affect the generated random number list, and YET, you are
able to obtain DIFFERENT set of random numbers. then i will be convinced
that random numbers can be generated.
i believe this "identical" test will have "identical" set of random numbers.
and this shows that, i can predict the random numbers (as long as i get hold
the factor(s) that will affect the random generator).
in another words, i can let the dice be any of my desired number as long as
i know how far the distance should i drop the dice, the angle, the force,
the power and so on...
does random number still exists if we are able to generate 2 or more set of
identical set of random numbers? well, i think ya know the answer.
sincerely,
sulaiman chang
Alex McDonald
> hi
> let say, if you are able to get 2 "identical" computer to run your (random
> generator) program/script and provide them with "identical" factor(s) that
> will modify or affect the generated random number list, and YET, you are
> able to obtain DIFFERENT set of random numbers. then i will be convinced
> that random numbers can be generated.
>
> i believe this "identical" test will have "identical" set of random
numbers.
> and this shows that, i can predict the random numbers (as long as i get
hold
> the factor(s) that will affect the random generator).
>
You're talking about pseudo-random numbers, not random numbers.
> in another words, i can let the dice be any of my desired number as long
as
> i know how far the distance should i drop the dice, the angle, the force,
> the power and so on...
The Newtonian universe was debunked as a useful approximation when quantum
mechanics made an appearance courtesy of Heisenberg in 1925. The world of
the very small doesn't obey deterministic rules; it's statistical in nature.
You can't do what you claim you can.
>
> does random number still exists if we are able to generate 2 or more set
of
> identical set of random numbers? well, i think ya know the answer.
You're right there.
>
>
> sincerely,
> sulaiman chang
>
>
See http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/. Now, please stop trying to suggest
that random numbers aren't possible. You can't guess the output from this
technology, never ever. Why not try & understand this stuff instead of
proving you can square the circle? And why all the x-posting to newsgroups
where this is off topic?
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
The Wannabee
>
> See http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/. Now, please stop trying to suggest
> that random numbers aren't possible.
Random numbers are impossible. Saying anything else is completly insane,
or due to serious errors in observation. But anyway. I read that page.
> You can't guess the output from this
> technology, never ever. Why not try & understand this stuff instead of
> proving you can square the circle? And why all the x-posting to
> newsgroups
> where this is off topic?
Random happenings, truely random happenmings are not possible. EVER.
Random numbers, or any random happenings are totally impossible. Utterly
insane, and highly humorous.
The Wannabee
"
Your request is relayed to the HotBits server, which flashes the random
bytes back to you over the Web. Since the HotBits generation hardware
produces data at a modest rate (about 30 bytes per second), requests are
usually filled from an "inventory" of pre-built HotBits. Once the random
bytes are delivered to you, they are immediately discarded--the same data
will never be sent to any other user and no records are kept of the data
at this or any other site."
* LOLLY *
They now have 2 million users. Each able to receive 1 byte, roughly each
week ??? Great ! Why not use that as seed ? Time when you get a random
byte ;-) And use that time to seed you data
:-Ø)
Alex McDonald
"The Wannabee" <faq@.@.@.@.@SZMyggenPV.Com> wrote in message
news:opr98ng8...@news.fasthost.no...
>
Strange, I didn't see any reference to two million users. Can you point it
out?
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
The Wannabee
<alex...@btopenworld.com>:
> Strange, I didn't see any reference to two million users. Can you point
> it
> out?
No. Frankly I cannot. But I be happy to point it out once it happens. Just
imagine. The internet craving for truely random numbers, produced by this
lazy mother nature. Oh, shes a bitch for sure, just _produsing_ random
numbers, 30 times a second :-)
How gullible are you ? To find out insert a coin here. "Comedy comes
clean"...
T.M. Sommers
>
> Random happenings, truely random happenmings are not possible. EVER.
Of course they are possible; they happen all the time. Or are
you going to claim that radioactive decay is deterministic? You
need to study a bit of quantum mechanics.
wolfgang kern
T.M. Sommers wrote:
| > Random happenings, truely random happenmings are not possible. EVER.
|
| Of course they are possible; they happen all the time. Or are
| you going to claim that radioactive decay is deterministic? You
| need to study a bit of quantum mechanics.
Radioactive decay would be deterministic if you can see/determine
all the tiny parts and all energy involved and surrounding ...
Quantum mechanics work on axioms, which reflect the level of
knowledge/measurement-precision/and... guessing :)
The future is near, so we may once determine and measure also
sub-quarks or even smaller/faster particels.
Randomness is a matter of the unkown facts only [period].
__
wolfgang
T.M. Sommers
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
> | > Random happenings, truely random happenmings are not possible. EVER.
> |
> | Of course they are possible; they happen all the time. Or are
> | you going to claim that radioactive decay is deterministic? You
> | need to study a bit of quantum mechanics.
>
> Radioactive decay would be deterministic if you can see/determine
> all the tiny parts and all energy involved and surrounding ...
>
> Quantum mechanics work on axioms, which reflect the level of
> knowledge/measurement-precision/and... guessing :)
Sorry, but no. On the quantum level, the universe is
fundamentally non-deterministic. It is not a question of limited
abililty to measure. It is impossible, fundamentally, for
example, to know both the position and momentum of a particle to
arbitrary precision. Better instruments will not change that.
The Wannabee
And this statement changes exactly what ? What you seem to say is that
there are random occuranses, that you cannot prove. What religion did you
say you belonged to ?
Truely random occuranses seems to me, in fact, obviously _impossible_.
They are not even conceivable. Because, if all the scientist of the world
agreed to random then they at the same time agree : "We cant prove it". I
wouldnt call such people scientists. And what they told me, I would not
consider science. If they told me : As far as we know, its seems to be
random, but we may not know the full picture yet, then they are scientists.
True Random is impossible to prove. You need faith. So Random seems to me
to be part of some religion.
PS : I be happy to read any links, if you have a good one.
"theres one..., theres another one.........theres one!...look theres
another one".
Robert Redelmeier
> Truely random occuranses seems to me, in fact, obviously
> _impossible_. They are not even conceivable. Because, if
> all the scientist of the world agreed to random then they
> at the same time agree : "We cant prove it". I wouldnt call
> such people scientists.
Just what many people thought of Quantum Physics.
Is light a wave or a particle?
> True Random is impossible to prove. You need faith.
> So Random seems to me to be part of some religion.
Correct insofar as Random is considered to be the absence
of order. You cannot prove a negative. But randomness can
be probabilistically proven via statistical methods.
> PS : I be happy to read any links, if you have a good one.
Search on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
-- Robert
T.M. Sommers
> På Sun, 27 Jun 2004 17:11:02 -0400, skrev T.M. Sommers <t...@nj.net>:
>
>> Sorry, but no. On the quantum level, the universe is fundamentally
>> non-deterministic. It is not a question of limited abililty to
>> measure. It is impossible, fundamentally, for example, to know both
>> the position and momentum of a particle to arbitrary precision.
>> Better instruments will not change that.
>
> And this statement changes exactly what ?
It changes nothing; it is simply a statement of fact.
> What you seem to say is that
> there are random occuranses, that you cannot prove.
QED is the most successful physical theory ever. It routinely
agrees with experiment to 15 or so significant figures. That is
as good a proof of any scientific theory that you will ever get.
And if you do not know that QED means in this context, you have
no business discussing it.
> What religion did
> you say you belonged to ?
What does religion have to do with it?
> Truely random occuranses seems to me, in fact, obviously _impossible_.
Unfortunately, the universe does not care how things seem to you,
and has arranged itself otherwise.
> They are not even conceivable.
To you, which is a statement about you, not about the universe.
> Because, if all the scientist of the
> world agreed to random then they at the same time agree : "We cant prove
> it". I wouldnt call such people scientists. And what they told me, I
> would not consider science.
You clearly have no idea at all about how quantum mechanics
works. I suggest you read a good book or two about it before
continuing this discussion. There are plenty out there.
> If they told me : As far as we know, its
> seems to be random, but we may not know the full picture yet, then they
> are scientists.
If they told you that, they know nothing about modern physics.
Phil Carmody
[quoting wannabee, who obviously don't wannabee taken seriously]
> > Truely random occuranses seems to me, in fact, obviously
> > _impossible_.
>
> Unfortunately, the universe does not care how things seem to you, and
> has arranged itself otherwise.
For extremely fortunate values of 'unfortunately' :-)
wolfgang kern
[..about randomness]
| > Quantum mechanics work on axioms, which reflect the level of
| > knowledge/measurement-precision/and... guessing :)
|
| Sorry, but no. On the quantum level, the universe is
| fundamentally non-deterministic. It is not a question of limited
| abililty to measure. It is impossible, fundamentally, for
| example, to know both the position and momentum of a particle to
| arbitrary precision. Better instruments will not change that.
Agreed, the infinitive universe wont show us all events.
Sure, this little beasts are fast as hell,
and seem to have a very short lifetime too,
so we see them come and go, but they may just cycle between
a known and a yet unknown state.
The key may lay in the yet unknown features of the space itself.
I think we are in a far OT range.
</philosophy> :)
__
wolfgang
Ed Beroset
Bringing things back from the metaphysical to the world of computing,
here's a little tidbit from Electronic Engineering Times:
http://www.eet.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=22102055
It's short on detail, but with the terms and labs mentioned in the
article it's not hard to find more by googling.
Ed
T.M. Sommers
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
> [..about randomness]
> | > Quantum mechanics work on axioms, which reflect the level of
> | > knowledge/measurement-precision/and... guessing :)
> |
> | Sorry, but no. On the quantum level, the universe is
> | fundamentally non-deterministic. It is not a question of limited
> | abililty to measure. It is impossible, fundamentally, for
> | example, to know both the position and momentum of a particle to
> | arbitrary precision. Better instruments will not change that.
>
> Agreed, the infinitive universe wont show us all events.
No, no, no. It is not a question of our simply not being able to
measure things like the trajectory of an electron. Electrons do
not follow trajectories, period. Note, for instance, that the
lowest electronic state in a hydrogen atom has zero angular
momentum. Consider the implications of that for a moment.
> Sure, this little beasts are fast as hell,
> and seem to have a very short lifetime too,
> so we see them come and go, but they may just cycle between
> a known and a yet unknown state.
There are no hidden variables.
> The key may lay in the yet unknown features of the space itself.
Quantum gravity is even weirder than normal quantum mechanics.
> I think we are in a far OT range.
> </philosophy> :)
This is not philosophy, it is physics.
wolfgang kern
T.M. Sommers wrote:
| No, no, no. It is not a question of our simply not being able to
| measure things like the trajectory of an electron. Electrons do
| not follow trajectories, period. Note, for instance, that the
| lowest electronic state in a hydrogen atom has zero angular
| momentum. Consider the implications of that for a moment.
Yes, and hydrogen will become solid near 0°K,
but my personal view of the universe reaches a bit beyond
the books, I mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty is useful until
someone discover more facts and can reduce the Uncertainty
to a lesser degree.
|... but they may just cycle between a known and a yet unknown state.
| There are no hidden variables.
Sure not in the books, but I can imagine to find as many smaller parts
as atoms in our moon, if I could take apart a single particle.
I don't believe in any smallest part or a smallest energy quantum.
| > The key may lay in the yet unknown features of the space itself.
| Quantum gravity is even weirder than normal quantum mechanics.
Yes, Quantum mechanic is a good model to calculate and get a view,
but if axioms never would be questioned, science wont proceed further.
| > </philosophy> :)
| This is not philosophy, it is physics.
If we just talk about physics, we could also just show each other
a list of the books we read :)
I love to think ideas beyond the books ;)
[philosophy may lead to new ways]
__
wolfgang
Alex McDonald
news:Wladnah8ivc...@telcove.net...
> wolfgang kern wrote:
> > T.M. Sommers wrote:
http://web.phys.ksu.edu/vqm/tutorials/interpretingwavefunctions/interlude.html
I particularly like the following extracts;
"Newton's model created an image of a rational world proceeding in a
rational way - a world view eagerly embraced by philosophers, theologians,
and physicists alike."
How true, even now.
"Beneath this world view lie two very important assumptions. The first is
that all events are ordered, not random... Events continue, according to a
system of ordered rules, with an existence independent of the observer. All
that remained was for science to discover the rules."
and, (famously, and often misquoted as "God does not play dice.");
"Quantum theory is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it
is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring
us closer to the secrets of the "old" one. I, at any rate, am convinced He
is not playing at dice. [Einstein, 1926]"
Many in this thread are looking for these certainties, sure that they will
be found. In the meanwhile, the rest of us will just have to get on
explaining the world as we find it, instead of trying to find the world of
certainties that Newton described.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
T.M. Sommers
>
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
> | No, no, no. It is not a question of our simply not being
> | able to
> | measure things like the trajectory of an electron. Electrons
> | do
> | not follow trajectories, period. Note, for instance, that
> | the lowest electronic state in a hydrogen atom has zero
> | angular
> | momentum. Consider the implications of that for a moment.
>
> Yes, and hydrogen will become solid near 0°K,
So what? The atoms of a solid still have non-zero kinetic
energy, hence non-zero momentum.
> but my personal view of the universe
Once again, the universe does not care about your personal view,
or mine.
> reaches a bit beyond
> the books,
It is not a question of books, but of experiments.
> I mean Heisenberg's Uncertainty is useful until
> someone discover more facts and can reduce the Uncertainty
> to a lesser degree.
The proof of the uncertainly principle is almost purely
mathematical; the physics enters only at the end, when
interpreting some of the symbols. The proof is closely related
to the triangle inequality (the sum of the lengths of 2 sides of
a triangle are greater than or equal to the length of the third
side). If you think the proof is flawed, please show the flaw.
> |... but they may just cycle between a known and a yet unknown
> |state.
> | There are no hidden variables.
>
> Sure not in the books, but I can imagine to find as many
> smaller parts as atoms in our moon, if I could take apart a
> single particle.
That is not what hidden variable theories are.
> I don't believe in any smallest part or a
> smallest energy quantum.
String theorists would disagree with you. But what do they know?
> | > The key may lay in the yet unknown features of the space
> | > itself.
> | Quantum gravity is even weirder than normal quantum
> | mechanics.
>
> Yes, Quantum mechanic is a good model to calculate and get a
> view, but if axioms never would be questioned, science wont
> proceed further.
First, quantum mechanics is not an axiom. Second, yes, theories
and experiments should be questioned, but that does not mean
that any crackpot idea anyone comes up with is just as good as
the current theory. If you want to question quantum mechanics,
you must provide your own theory that matches the data, or
provide experiments that conflict with the current theory. That
is how science progresses, not by saying, "I do not like that
theory, so it must be wrong."
> | > </philosophy> :)
> | This is not philosophy, it is physics.
>
> If we just talk about physics, we could also just show each
> other
> a list of the books we read :)
Anybody can write anything in a book. What matters is
experiments, and the experiments agree with the standard model,
not with any hidden variable theory.
> I love to think ideas beyond the books ;)
Fine, but do not pretend that you can refute some
well-established theory just by thinking it is wrong.
> [philosophy may lead to new ways]
Philosophy is what you do when you cannot do the experiments.
Once you can do the experiments, it stops being philosophy and
becomes physics.
Sulaiman Chang
This feeling of certainty was stated well by the French mathematician Pierre
LaPlace:
"An intelligence which at a given instant knew all the forces acting in
nature and the position of every object in the universe – if endowed with a
brain sufficiently vast to make all necessary calculations – could describe
with a single formula the motions of the largest astronomical bodies and
those of the smallest atoms. To such an intelligence, nothing would be
uncertain; the future, like the past, would be an open book."
sincerely,
sulaiman chang
wolfgang kern
T.M. Sommers wrote:
[---]
| Philosophy is what you do when you cannot do the experiments.
| Once you can do the experiments, it stops being philosophy and
| becomes physics.
You are right. [over and out]
__
wolfgang
Torsten
is a very difficult piece of art.
I have found a few years ago somebody (I believe from this group) posted
a simple method to test the quality of the random numbers produced.
program a short test program
in graphics mode higher resolution is better
generate random x,y points within the range of your screen resolution.
Put this in a endless loop and plot each point to screen.
Run it.
If you are plotting white points to a black background you will be able to
see how evenly the points get distributed on screen.
eventually the blend of points will turn into a increasingly gray surface
that
gets brighter until it will appear all white.
Run this a few times and note if there are any areas of the screen that
develop
a uneven color blend or heavy hit zones.
Its a simple and amazingly revealing test that has caused me to rewrite many
of
my own attempts at random number manipulation.
And you will be able to test a much larger sampling range then the few you
get now.
Good Luck
"Paul Allen Panks" <pa...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote in message
news:cb5u35$plp$1...@chessie.cirr.com...
> How does HLA's random number generator differ from traditional BASIC's
> version? I've long based much of my adventure gaming on random numbers,
> especially during player/monster fighting. Does seeding a number truly
> make it random, or only quasi-random?
>
> Let's say I have a number between 1 and 35. What guarantee do I have that
> the computer won't habitually (or accidentally) pick the same range of
> numbers twice? Or the same individual number twice?
>
> To find out, I wrote a simple QBasic program below:
>
> 1 CLEAR
> 5 CLS : PRINT "Random Number test"
> 10 FOR x = 1 TO 10
> 20 RANDOMIZE TIMER
> 30 i = INT(RND * 35) + 1
> 40 PRINT i
> 45 NEXT x
>
Alex McDonald
news:akDFc.4597$6e7....@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> Hi, as you probably have found by now that a good random number routine
> is a very difficult piece of art.
> I have found a few years ago somebody (I believe from this group) posted
> a simple method to test the quality of the random numbers produced.
> program a short test program
> in graphics mode higher resolution is better
> generate random x,y points within the range of your screen resolution.
> Put this in a endless loop and plot each point to screen.
> Run it.
> If you are plotting white points to a black background you will be able to
> see how evenly the points get distributed on screen.
> eventually the blend of points will turn into a increasingly gray surface
> that
> gets brighter until it will appear all white.
> Run this a few times and note if there are any areas of the screen that
> develop
> a uneven color blend or heavy hit zones.
> Its a simple and amazingly revealing test that has caused me to rewrite
many
> of
> my own attempts at random number manipulation.
> And you will be able to test a much larger sampling range then the few you
> get now.
> Good Luck
>
The technique demonstrates the distribution of the numbers generated, not
their randomness. The human eye is atrocious at recognising randomness, and
will often get it completey wrong. See
http://science.ntu.ac.uk/rsscse/ts/gtb/chatterjee.pdf, page 5 for an
example. There are much better tests; for example, a truly random series of
numbers is not compressible. If your screen turns uniformly grey to white,
it's likely your numbers are _non_-random.
===snipped
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Benjamin Valentin
"Robert Redelmeier" <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote
> I believe one of the Intel chipsets (northbridge) has a port
> with a thermal diode[s] on it. This will be truly random, but
> will probably have limited bandwidth.
Well, but ther is the possibility to calculte the thermal differences (ok, i
don´t belive that anywone tried it jet), even if you throw a coin, you could
calculate the side it´ll fall on you would need only the weight of the coin,
the air resistance, the power of throwing and some 1000 other things and a
formula, noone knows ^^.
There is sayn, someone calculated moving of a roulette ball - he won! (i
thought i heared something like that. He had some instruments and a liddle
pc in his clothes. but i don´t know anymore, if it was realy true...)So you
can say that NOTHING is truly random!Everything is defeadet the causality,
neo ^^. During writing this, I runn the same random programm like above,
just with "For 1 =x to 30000". So I can see, that the random looses it´might
in the infinity. While I write this article, every number passes the black
window more than twice. And is this raly important then, when two numbers
appear twice?`I don´t belive. In an other parralell universe it happens
differend anyway ^^. So i can´t belive that this would become a problem
ever.
benpicco
Robert Redelmeier
> Well, but ther is the possibility to calculte the thermal
> even if you throw a coin, you could calculate the side
With thermal diodes, I believe they only take the low-order bits.
But not so low-order as to be subject to quantification bias.
Nothing as gross as a coin toss which probably has some bias.
There _are_ truly random events. Study some quantuum physics.
-- Robert
Lemming
<benp...@compuserve.de> wrote:
>
>"Robert Redelmeier" <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote
>> I believe one of the Intel chipsets (northbridge) has a port
>> with a thermal diode[s] on it. This will be truly random, but
>> will probably have limited bandwidth.
>Well, but ther is the possibility to calculte the thermal differences (ok, i
>don´t belive that anywone tried it jet), even if you throw a coin, you could
>calculate the side it´ll fall on you would need only the weight of the coin,
>the air resistance, the power of throwing and some 1000 other things and a
>formula, noone knows ^^.
That's the old physics. The new (quantum) physics and also Chaos
theory tell us that it's not possible. even if we could measure
accurately enough (we can't) then chaos comes in because we can't
calculate accurately enough. If we could calculate accurately enough
(we can't) quantum theory comes in and throws in a couple of
spontaneously created particles, and the whole calculation goes out
the window.
>There is sayn, someone calculated moving of a roulette ball - he won! (i
>thought i heared something like that. He had some instruments and a liddle
>pc in his clothes. but i don´t know anymore, if it was realy true...)
It wasn't. I've never heard the story, but trust me, it wasn't true.
>So you
>can say that NOTHING is truly random!Everything is defeadet the causality,
>neo ^^. During writing this, I runn the same random programm like above,
>just with "For 1 =x to 30000". So I can see, that the random looses it´might
>in the infinity. While I write this article, every number passes the black
>window more than twice. And is this raly important then, when two numbers
>appear twice?`I don´t belive. In an other parralell universe it happens
>differend anyway ^^. So i can´t belive that this would become a problem
>ever.
I didn't understand the last part of your post.
Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Auric__
>There is sayn, someone calculated moving of a roulette ball - he won! (i
>thought i heared something like that. He had some instruments and a liddle
>pc in his clothes. but i don´t know anymore, if it was realy true...)
That's blackjack, IIRC.
--
auric underscore underscore at hotmail dot com
*****
If only you had butt out, you'd still have a liver.
Robert Redelmeier
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:22:08 +0200, Benjamin Valentin wrote:
>>There is sayn, someone calculated moving of a roulette ball - he won! (i
>>thought i heared something like that. He had some instruments and a liddle
>
> That's blackjack, IIRC.
And "counting cards" is rather old hat at Blackjack.
Some casinos will throw you out if they catch you at it,
but that's probably harder than catching a GPL violation!
Other places used a multi-deck shoe to increase randomness.
-- Robert
Derek Ross
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:22:08 +0200, Benjamin Valentin wrote:
>
> >There is sayn, someone calculated moving of a roulette ball - he won! (i
> >thought i heared something like that. He had some instruments and a liddle
> >pc in his clothes. but i don´t know anymore, if it was realy true...)
>
> That's blackjack, IIRC.
No. It was roulette. The PC was actually built into one of the
punter's shoes. Check out the following link (among others)
http://physics.ucsc.edu/people/eudaemons/layout.html
Blackjack is far easier to beat. You don't need a computer as long as
you have a perfect memory. Unfortunately the casinos are well aware of
this and if they decide that you are making use of your perfect
memory, they will show you the door.
Cheers
Derek
Randall Hyde
"Derek Ross" <dere...@mail-x-change.com> wrote in message
news:895dd022.04073...@posting.google.com...
> Auric__ <not.m...@email.address> wrote in message
news:<p3qlg092655snjfk3...@4ax.com>...
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:22:08 +0200, Benjamin Valentin wrote:
> >
> > >There is sayn, someone calculated moving of a roulette ball - he won!
(i
> > >thought i heared something like that. He had some instruments and a
liddle
> > >pc in his clothes. but i don´t know anymore, if it was realy true...)
> >
> > That's blackjack, IIRC.
>
> No. It was roulette. The PC was actually built into one of the
> punter's shoes. Check out the following link (among others)
>
> http://physics.ucsc.edu/people/eudaemons/layout.html
>
This is a rather amusing link.
I was working for a company in Manhattan Beach, CA in 1978
when a couple of guys approached the company about building
this device (or one just like it). My boss respectfully turned them
down as he didn't want to find himself in the desert with his kneecaps
shot off some night. :-)
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
Benjamin Valentin
"Lemming" wrote:
>I wrote:
>So you
> >can say that NOTHING is truly random!Everything is defeadet the
causality,
> >neo ^^. During writing this, I runn the same random programm like above,
> >just with "For 1 =x to 30000". So I can see, that the random looses
> >in the infinity. While I write this article, every number passes the
black
> >window more than twice. And is this raly important then, when two numbers
> >differend anyway ^^. So i can愒 belive that this would become a problem
> >ever.
>
> I didn't understand the last part of your post.
Lemming
<benp...@compuserve.de> wrote:
>
>"Lemming" wrote:
>>I wrote:
> >So you
>> >can say that NOTHING is truly random!Everything is defeadet the
>causality,
>> >neo ^^. During writing this, I runn the same random programm like above,
>> >just with "For 1 =x to 30000". So I can see, that the random looses
>it“might
>> >in the infinity. While I write this article, every number passes the
>black
>> >window more than twice. And is this raly important then, when two numbers
>> >appear twice?`I don“t belive. In an other parralell universe it happens
>> >differend anyway ^^. So i can“t belive that this would become a problem
>> >ever.
>>
>> I didn't understand the last part of your post.
>Why?
I'm not sure. Perhaps my reading comprehension isn't good; Perhaps
you didn't express yourself very well; Perhaps I needed more context;
Perhaps I didn't understand what you were trying to achieve.
I re-read your post after seeing your reply, and tried hard to
understand what you were saying. The best understanding I can come to
is that you wrote a short program in some flavour of BASIC, using the
inbuilt pseudo-random number generator, and when that generator didn't
produce sufficiently random integers the first time you ran it, you
decided that this was evidence that everything in the universe is
deterministic. I suspect this may be the opposite of what you meant.
Benjamin Valentin
"Lemming"wrote:
I suspect this may be the opposite of what you meant.
>
> Lemming
> --
> Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Well, I only ment, that I made a slotmachine with Qbasic, and it would be
impossible to win, without double numbers. But of course it is misterious,
that 9th and the 10th numbers are nearly or exactly the same. I don愒 know
why, too. but the "truly random" things made me think about the parralel
universes and you "schrodiger愀 cat" brang me tho this idea, too. It愀 the
old thing with the parallel universes and that everything happens, like it
happens in this universe, in a parralel universe the decition will be
different, so that everything that is possible happens in the
parraleluniverses.
Lemming
<benp...@compuserve.de> wrote:
>
>"Lemming"wrote:
> I suspect this may be the opposite of what you meant.
>>
>> Lemming
>> --
>> Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
>
>Well, I only ment, that I made a slotmachine with Qbasic, and it would be
>impossible to win, without double numbers. But of course it is misterious,
>that 9th and the 10th numbers are nearly or exactly the same.
If your program consistently comes up with the same numbers for the
9th and 10th spin, then I'd say there is most likely something wrong
with the program or with the RND function you are using.
>I don愒 know
>why, too. but the "truly random" things made me think about the parralel
>universes and you "schrodiger愀 cat" brang me tho this idea, too. It愀 the
>old thing with the parallel universes and that everything happens, like it
>happens in this universe, in a parralel universe the decition will be
>different, so that everything that is possible happens in the
>parraleluniverses.
The "Many Worlds" theory leads to some interesting algorithms. For
example, see the footnote to the entry for "Bogo Sort" in The Jargon
File:
http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/B/bogo-sort.html
"A spectacular variant of bogo-sort has been proposed which has
the interesting property that, if the Many Worlds interpretation of
quantum mechanics is true, it can sort an arbitrarily large array in
linear time. (In the Many-Worlds model, the result of any quantum
action is to split the universe-before into a sheaf of
universes-after, one for each possible way the state vector can
collapse; in any one of the universes-after the result appears
random.) The steps are: 1. Permute the array randomly using a quantum
process, 2. If the array is not sorted, destroy the universe (checking
that the list is sorted requires O(n) time). Implementation of step 2
is left as an exercise for the reader."
john knoderer
> Well, I only ment, that I made a slotmachine with Qbasic, and it would be
> impossible to win, without double numbers. But of course it is misterious,
> that 9th and the 10th numbers are nearly or exactly the same. I don愒 know
> why, too. but the "truly random" things made me think about the parralel
> universes and you "schrodiger愀 cat" brang me tho this idea, too. It愀 the
> old thing with the parallel universes and that everything happens, like it
> happens in this universe, in a parralel universe the decition will be
> different, so that everything that is possible happens in the
> parraleluniverses.
Since slot machines have wheels inside them with a specific sequence of
shapes (or whatever) on them, and since the game is theoretically affected
by the force you use to pull down the handle, you might
1. Use arrays to hold what is on each wheel
2. When you tell the user to pull the handle, start generating random
numbers (spinning the wheels) until they click or press a key
3. If they press a key, use the ascii value of what they press to be
pseudo-strength (Z is stronger than A???) or if they click on the handle,
where they click on the handle could be pseudo-strength (you decide)
4. Then spin the wheels until the number of images have passed, of course,
slowing each wheel down at different speeds so they appear to have been
running different times?
This routine, coupled with using RANDOMIZE TIMER at the beginning of the
program, makes your program 100% random.
I have used similar ways of generating fully random numbers. I'd be happy to
expand on my thoughts.
John
E-mails:
webmaster AT mazes.com
webmaster AT godloveseveryone.org
Windows Messenger e-mail:
webmaster AT mazes.com (be sure to change ' AT ' to '@'
(responses might be delayed if I am in the other house for awhile)
Telephone: 1-479-BYTEMAN (1-479-298-3626)
(if you remember the infamous GRY puzzle, you can
can remember my phone # as: 1-GRY-BYTEMAN
(no phone calls in morning or after 10pm Central USA time zone)
P.S. After 12 years in the non-profit arena as the equivalent of a partly
paid volunteer, and I am now happily unemployed. My only income is from my
web pages (not enough to pay web maintenance yet) and from my time, so
requests for help should be on the assumption that, after the help is
complete, you'll make an appropriate donation (your choice of amount) to
my web maintenance funds, living costs, or you can even pay me as an
independent contractor and deduct it from your income taxes. However, I
won't let a lack of funds stop me from helping someone, though. I also
accept good books, barter, etc. when cash is difficult for you.
Lemming
<knod...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Lemming"wrote:
>> Well, I only ment, that I made a slotmachine with Qbasic, and it would be
>> impossible to win, without double numbers. But of course it is misterious,
>> that 9th and the 10th numbers are nearly or exactly the same. I don愒 know
>> why, too. but the "truly random" things made me think about the parralel
>> universes and you "schrodiger愀 cat" brang me tho this idea, too. It愀 the
>> old thing with the parallel universes and that everything happens, like it
>> happens in this universe, in a parralel universe the decition will be
>> different, so that everything that is possible happens in the
>> parraleluniverses.
I didn't write that. Please take care to quote correctly.
Lemming
john knoderer
My apologies. My e-mail program put the name in, and I didn't double-check.
I'm just getting back into the enjoyment of checking newsgroups after years
of not having time.
John
Lemming
<knod...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I didn't write that. Please take care to quote correctly.
>
>My apologies. My e-mail program put the name in, and I didn't double-check.
Apology accepted.
Maybe it's time to consider using something other than Outbreak
Express to read news. Free Agent, from www.forteinc.com is excellent
and free. There's also a reasonably priced pay version which adds a
few facilities which make life a bit easier.
>I'm just getting back into the enjoyment of checking newsgroups after years
>of not having time.
Enjoy!