??? 04/30/11 20:59 Read: times |
#182130 - Randomness - NOT Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I'll make a statement that may jar the sensibility of some that will read it. But here it is anyway. There can be no such thing as true randomness. Every process one can think of as a predicate to "randomness" will be flawed. Generally speaking everything in the universe is in some way affected by something else. On a more specific note the simple act of trying to probe, measure or test some process for true randomness will have an effect on the outcome by imposing some type of bias.
So the search for randomness needs to be tempered with "what is good enough". Michael Karas |
Topic | Author | Date |
Truly Random Number Generator | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Latency Time Problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
this is bad | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Don't think 1:1 mapping | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
understanding | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Doesn't matter | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Yeah, yeah!! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Way more than 3 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
baloney | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
So easy to make assumptions and crash and burn | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Missing the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Its just soooo wrong | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Randomness - NOT | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
The key point is | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Johnson noise versus zener noise... | 01/01/70 00:00 |