NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmmmmm...

...seems to me that you can't really have anything that is actually 'random', as in unpredictable, or, um, y'know, er... random.

For example, think of a random number between 1 and 10. Quickly!! (Apparently, about half of the time people ask that, the outcome is '7'.) Now, whatever you thought of (even if it was 'green chickens dancing ontop of a cowboy hat') is not random: the fact that you thought of it, and not anything else, makes it not random, because you wouldn't have said it UNLESS YOU HAD THOUGHT OF IT! i.e. There must be a reason for you to think of it, making it not random.

I would be grateful if anyone could come up with something that is truly random.

Randomness - cool word, huh?












P.S. askdfjgsdkf (not random either)

P.P.S. I've just thought - are prime numbers random? Is 'pi' random?

we4tmklgsfdbhio'syikmeargt3jopeow0tdnn,xjlkljtq0[tsrji5t694idfsjg

we4tmklgsfdbhio'syikmeargt3jopeow0tdnn,xjlkljtq0[tsrji5t694idfsjg

Sorry, no, because those figures are the very ones pressed by your fingers. This is confusing, isn't it? :confused:

For example, think of a random number between 1 and 10. Quickly!! (Apparently, about half of the time people ask that, the outcome is '7'.) Now, whatever you thought of (even if it was 'green chickens dancing ontop of a cowboy hat') is not random: the fact that you thought of it, and not anything else, makes it not random, because you wouldn't have said it UNLESS YOU HAD THOUGHT OF IT!


Your argument makes no sense, although that probably isn't a random event anyway. Most likely there's some kind of psychological predisposition each person has to particlar numbers.

But something like radioactive decay is random, as far as anyone knows.

I think you're confusing "random" with "unintentional"

Hmmmmm...

...seems to me that you can't really have abything that is actually 'random', as in unpredictable, or, um, y'know, er... random.

For example, think of a random number between 1 and 10. Quickly!! (Apparently, about half of the time people ask that, the outcome is '7'.) Now, whatever you thought of (even if it was 'green chickens dancing ontop of a cowboy hat') is not random: the fact that you thought of it, and not anything else, makes it not random, because you wouldn't have said it UNLESS YOU HAD THOUGHT OF IT!

I would be grateful if anyone could come up with something that is truly random.

Randomness - cool word, huh?




What are you talking about? Do you mean that nothing is random because it is all drawn from experience? Even then I could make up a creature that no one had ever seen or thought of before. Granted it may be peices of other creatures I have seen molded to make a new one. It is still something new which I guess is random.

or

Things aren't random because you think of them first?...How does that negate randomness except in the way I said above. The thought did not exist and then it randomly did. Or perhaps you mean it can't just randomly happen without you trying to do it in some way? Basically you are unclear.

Your argument makes no sense, although that probably isn't a random event anyway. Most likely there's some kind of psychological predisposition each person has to particlar numbers.

But something like radioactive decay is random, as far as anyone knows.

Oh. Right.

Radioactive decay, eh?

What are you talking about? Do you mean that nothing is random because it is all drawn from experience? Even then I could make up a creature that no one had ever seen or thought of before. Granted it may be peices of other creatures I have seen molded to make a new one. It is still something new which I guess is random.

or

Things aren't random because you think of them first?...How does that negate randomness except in the way I said above. The thought did not exist and then it randomly did. Or perhaps you mean it can't just randomly happen without you trying to do it in some way? Basically you are unclear.


I mean there would have to be a reason for you to think of it - so therefore it wouldn't be random. 2378t4fiuwerhls.

Oh. Right.

Radioactive decay, eh?

**nods**

Hmmmmm...

...seems to me that you can't really have anything that is actually 'random', as in unpredictable, or, um, y'know, er... random.

For example, think of a random number between 1 and 10. Quickly!! (Apparently, about half of the time people ask that, the outcome is '7'.) Now, whatever you thought of (even if it was 'green chickens dancing ontop of a cowboy hat') is not random: the fact that you thought of it, and not anything else, makes it not random, because you wouldn't have said it UNLESS YOU HAD THOUGHT OF IT!

I would be grateful if anyone could come up with something that is truly random.

Randomness - cool word, huh?












P.S. askdfjgsdkf (not random either)


There is only two things so far they have found to use for a truly random seed for a random number generator
capacitor discharge fluctuation
and ambient white noise

And those are only thought to be statistically unbiased, other then that everything else is pseudo-random

I mean there would have to be a reason for you to think of it - so therefore it wouldn't be random.
the act of thinking it might not be random, but that doesn't mean the thought itself can not be radndom

**nods**

**nods knowledgeably back**

There is only two things so far they have found to use for a truly random seed for a random number generator
capacitor discharge fluctuation
and ambient white noise

And those are only thought to be statistically unbiased, other then that everything else is pseudo-random

What's capacitor discharge fluctuation?? :confused:

the act of thinking it might not be random, but that doesn't mean the thought itself can not be radndom

The thought itself can't just appear, because brains as far as I know work logically and, if you're super-clever, in theory, predictably. Oh dear.

Your argument makes no sense, although that probably isn't a random event anyway. Most likely there's some kind of psychological predisposition each person has to particlar numbers.

But something like radioactive decay is random, as far as anyone knows.
I thought they had found decay patterns
For encryption we are supposed to use capacitor discharge fluctuation as the seed for our random number algorithms

What's capacitor discharge fluctuation?? :confused:
There is variance in the frequency and voltage discharge
Its small but its usually used for a seed for an algorithm

I've just thought - are prime numbers random? Is 'pi' random?

- 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37 etc.

- 3.14whatever

I thought they had found decay patterns


Could be, could be. Don't know, but I don't believe so.

How about if I typed something into my keyboard but an entirely different sentence appeared on-screen. For example, I actually typed "Margaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold Bench" over and over in this post.

I've just thought - are prime numbers random? Is 'pi' random?
Primes NO power of primes will give you large primes every time

Pi is statisticaly unbiased (and can and has been used as a seed)

BUT it is a prime list EVERYONE KNOWS ABOUT
So it is no use in encryption ... its like using a random table (well it is a psudo-random table)

I've just thought - are prime numbers random? Is 'pi' random?

- 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37 etc.

- 3.14whatever
Ive gotten to 20 billionth digit of pi (calculating) so far it has been un biased like I said but its not a good seed for encryption

How about if I typed something into my keyboard but an entirely different sentence appeared on-screen. For example, I actually typed "Margaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold Bench" over and over in this post.

Well, that wouldn't be random because (a) you planned to do it, and (b) it would have appeared in your brain for a reason, as brains work logically. For instance if you've been reading newspaper and then looking at porn and then going to the seaside*...


*seaside is not random because I misread bench for beach!

How about if I typed something into my keyboard but an entirely different sentence appeared on-screen. For example, I actually typed "Margaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold Bench" over and over in this post.

Margaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold BenchMargaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold BenchMargaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold BenchMargaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold BenchMargaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold BenchMargaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold BenchMargaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold BenchMargaret Thatcher Naked On A Cold Bench

puking into a crowd is as random as it gets.

First, there's the consistency of the puke.
Then there's the chances of hitting someone.
THen the sympathy barfs begin.

I won't go into details beyond that. However, no two mass pukings are exactly alike. *nod*

puking into a crowd is as random as it gets.

First, there's the consistency of the puke.
Then there's the chances of hitting someone.
THen the sympathy barfs begin.

I won't go into details beyond that. However, no two mass pukings are exactly alike. *nod*

I know it sounds dodgy, but... how do you know?

puking into a crowd is as random as it gets.

First, there's the consistency of the puke.
Then there's the chances of hitting someone.
THen the sympathy barfs begin.

I won't go into details beyond that. However, no two mass pukings are exactly alike. *nod*
No, but the data can be examined afterwards and all the variables considered in order for the barfathon to be plotted. I'll agree with the sympathy barfs, though; you'd have to include chance somewhere in there.

In first place - 'Yes.'

In second place - 'No.'

In third place (last but not least) - 'Maybe.'

http://www.rollergirl.ca/media/images/meghan-boyce/other/1st-place.jpg

I know it sounds dodgy, but... how do you know?

It's LG. Never, ever ask, because you cannot be prepared for the answer.

For the purposes of uniformity of the discussion, from dictionary.com-

Random-
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

If 'random' simply suggests a purposeless set of information with as much of a chance for outcome as any other, why isn't something like "lkqroqv uehieuhiasnv niu hyiuhqiuhy" considered random?

For the purposes of uniformity of the discussion, from dictionary.com-

Random-
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics. Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3. Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.

If 'random' simply suggests a purposeless set of information with as much of a chance for outcome as any other, why isn't something like "lkqroqv uehieuhiasnv niu hyiuhqiuhy" considered random?

Because those figures are the very ones pressed by your fingers. Your brain controlled your fingers. And your brain works logically, not by random chemical explosions of thought... This is confusing, isn't it? :confused:

If you look at that last word, it's made up of all the same letters... like hynhiynhuyinhuyh. That is just an attempt of a repeated finger pattern. Look at your keyboard, and those 4 letters are probably very close together.

Because those figures are the very ones pressed by your fingers. Your brain controlled your fingers. And your brain works logically, not by random chemical explosions of thought... This is confusing, isn't it? :confused:

If you look at that last word, it's made up of all the same letters... like hynhiynhuyinhuyh. That is just an attempt of a repeated finger pattern. Look at your keyboard, and those 4 letters are very close together.

I see your point, but by your logic, 3.14159... isn't random, because there are two 1's close together, and 4 and 5 are very close.

also, how can pi be random when there's a way to derive it?

Well, from what I get from the earlier part of the thread, I think we gotta differentiate between unpredictability and randomness. The former is epistemological while the latter is ontological. That is to say, just because you can't predict something doesn't mean that it can be justified to be random.

Radio-active decay, white-noise, are random only because we don't know the inherent order- we don't really know how to predict the events involved in the atomic excitations. The best we do at the atomic level is to say that in a certain time, there is a certain probability that a certain event would take place. Its theoritically impossible to be more exact. This of course, could be used to say that randomness actually exists, or even interpret that everything is 'random'!

Digits of pi, square roots of 2,3, prime numbers can't of course be random. They are determined by a formula, and anything deterministic disqualifies to be random. All random generators we know admit themselves to be pseudo-random. Only way to get 'true(er)' random numbers is to rely on natural phenomena like atomic excitations (for the reasons mentioned above)

Similarly, no matter how hard you try to type out random numbers-
1, the neural activity in your brain is pretty deterministic, so the numbers you type would never be random
2. typing that way, you are only trying to present something that appears 'random', e.g. by not letting meaningful words appear. However, technically, there is no reason why a meaningful word can't appear in a random sequence (not that all language is random, though) such bias can't generate random numbers :->

According to what I found on the Oxford site, "random" means:

done, chosen, etc. without deciding in advance what is going to happen, or without any regular pattern: the random killing of innocent people a random sample / selection (= in which each thing has an equal chance of being chosen) The information is processed in a random order.
ran•dom•ly adv.: The winning numbers are randomly selected by computer. My phone seems to switch itself off randomly. ran•dom•ness noun [U]: It introduced an element of randomness into the situation.
noun

This is what the Online Etmology Dictionary has to say:

"having no definite aim or purpose," 1655, from at random (1565), "at great speed" (thus, "carelessly, haphazardly"), alteration of M.E. randon "impetuosity, speed" (c.1305), from O.Fr. randon "rush, disorder, force, impetuosity," from randir "to run fast," from Frankish *rant "a running," from P.Gmc. *randa (cf. O.H.G. rennen "to run," O.E. rinnan "to flow, to run"). In 1980s college student slang, it began to acquire a sense of "inferior, undesirable." Random access in ref. to computer memory is recorded from 1953.

The Chaos Theory expouses the idea that true randomness does not occur in nature and finding the underlying order in what might appear to be random data. It's pretty interesting, and if you want some more info about it, you can find it by doing a simple Google search.

Well, from what I get from the earlier part of the thread, I think we gotta differentiate between unpredictability and randomness. The former is epistemological while the latter is ontological. That is to say, just because you can't predict something doesn't mean that it can be justified to be random.

Radio-active decay, white-noise, are random only because we don't know the inherent order- we don't really know how to predict the events involved in the atomic excitations. The best we do at the atomic level is to say that in a certain time, there is a certain probability that a certain event would take place. Its theoritically impossible to be more exact. This of course, could be used to say that randomness actually exists, or even interpret that everything is 'random'!

Digits of pi, square roots of 2,3, prime numbers can't of course be random. They are determined by a formula, and anything deterministic disqualifies to be random. All random generators we know admit themselves to be pseudo-random. Only way to get 'true(er)' random numbers is to rely on natural phenomena like atomic excitations (for the reasons mentioned above)

Similarly, no matter how hard you try to type out random numbers-
1, the neural activity in your brain is pretty deterministic, so the numbers you type would never be random
2. typing that way, you are only trying to present something that appears 'random', e.g. by not letting meaningful words appear. However, technically, there is no reason why a meaningful word can't appear in a random sequence (not that all language is random, though) such bias can't generate random numbers :->


*closes eyes, drops fist on keyboard*

7767634

go me!

also, how can pi be random when there's a way to derive it?

Easily?

I will now log out. Bye, fellow randomdecidingpeoplealksjdfbhaksdj!

The thought itself can't just appear, because brains as far as I know work logically and, if you're super-clever, in theory, predictably. Oh dear.

Ah that makes your misunderstanding understandable. Brains do not function entirely logically. Computers function logically. Our brains run on the chaos system for much of what we do. One spark of thought triggers another and on and on it goes until some conclusion is drawn. The way this happens is unpredictable as far as I know and everyone's brain is set up differently and linked in a different manner. That is how we can create unique things and come up with entirely new ideas and computers basically can't. Not in the way we can anyways.

Random? Kinda like that time I streaked while singing "row your boat" downstairs while my roommate was watching TV?

Ah that makes your misunderstanding understandable. Brains do not function entirely logically. Computers function logically. Our brains run on the chaos system for much of what we do. One spark of thought triggers another and on and on it goes until some conclusion is drawn. The way this happens is unpredictable as far as I know and everyone's brain is set up differently and linked in a different manner. That is how we can create unique things and come up with entirely new ideas and computers basically can't. Not in the way we can anyways.

I think the non-deterministic chaos and randomness are not the same. Does non-determinism always gurantee randomness?

and would you consider any natural language (surely a human creation) as random?

I've just thought - are prime numbers random? Is 'pi' random?

- 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37 etc.

- 3.14whatever

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592......whatever (http://3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592.com/)

Hmmmmm...

...seems to me that you can't really have anything that is actually 'random', as in unpredictable, or, um, y'know, er... random.

For example, think of a random number between 1 and 10. Quickly!! (Apparently, about half of the time people ask that, the outcome is '7'.) Now, whatever you thought of (even if it was 'green chickens dancing ontop of a cowboy hat') is not random: the fact that you thought of it, and not anything else, makes it not random, because you wouldn't have said it UNLESS YOU HAD THOUGHT OF IT! i.e. There must be a reason for you to think of it, making it not random.

I would be grateful if anyone could come up with something that is truly random.

Randomness - cool word, huh?











P.S. askdfjgsdkf (not random either)

P.P.S. I've just thought - are prime numbers random? Is 'pi' random?
There is a bilogical law for that "The Law of Non-Randomness", it states that all thoughts and actions have an external or internal stimulant, which is turned stimualted by soemthing..etc. I'm not sure if that goes into maths tho, but as maths is a way of human's viewing the world, i guess it is all stimulated by human thought if u see wot i mean.Probably have explained that very clearly.

What's capacitor discharge fluctuation?? :confused:

Sounds like something out of Back to the Future.

Radioactive Decay is not random.

It's based on the concept of Half-Llife. (Not the game)

Put it this way. Say something has a radioactive value of 100.

It's half life is the time it take to get to 50. In another half life it's got to 25, then 12 and a half.

So, no radioactive thing can fully decay, just become so small it's invisible and harmless.

Sorry if this has been explained already.

MDH

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592......whatever (http://3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592.com/)

It's much easier to say 22/7

By the way, what part of Kildare are you from? Celbridge myself.

MDH

There is a bilogical law for that "The Law of Non-Randomness", it states that all thoughts and actions have an external or internal stimulant, which is turned stimualted by soemthing..etc. I'm not sure if that goes into maths tho, but as maths is a way of human's viewing the world, i guess it is all stimulated by human thought if u see wot i mean.Probably have explained that very clearly.

law of non-randomness? Is it like intelligent design or something?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

check out my region =p

Expecting something to happen when it should'nt is Ranod for instance.

OZ LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OJ oigfjdsv opfjdgo gjdoij oigjs0ogjs ogfjodj09rua (ujb -0is a lso random because i randomly put a mashing of keyboard keys in my system i mean sentencde anything else?

I know it sounds dodgy, but... how do you know?

Life experience. :D

According to what I found on the Oxford site, "random" means:

done, chosen, etc. without deciding in advance what is going to happen, or without any regular pattern: the random killing of innocent people a random sample / selection (= in which each thing has an equal chance of being chosen) The information is processed in a random order.
ran•dom•ly adv.: The winning numbers are randomly selected by computer. My phone seems to switch itself off randomly. ran•dom•ness noun [u]: It introduced an element of randomness into the situation.
noun

This is what the Online Etmology Dictionary has to say:

"having no definite aim or purpose," 1655, from at random (1565), "at great speed" (thus, "carelessly, haphazardly"), alteration of M.E. randon "impetuosity, speed" (c.1305), from O.Fr. randon "rush, disorder, force, impetuosity," from randir "to run fast," from Frankish *rant "a running," from P.Gmc. *randa (cf. O.H.G. rennen "to run," O.E. rinnan "to flow, to run"). In 1980s college student slang, it began to acquire a sense of "inferior, undesirable." Random access in ref. to computer memory is recorded from 1953.

The Chaos Theory expouses the idea that true randomness does not occur in nature and finding the underlying order in what might appear to be random data. It's pretty interesting, and if you want some more info about it, you can find it by doing a simple Google search.
:confused: :fluffle: :( :rolleyes: :mp5: :sniper: :gundge: Sticksave.

It's much easier to say 22/7

355/113 is a much better fractional approximation, and is the best approximation with less than 5 digits in the numerator and denominator.


And while the prime numbers aren't random, they sort of are... The "probability" that a number x is prime is 1/ln x. Sort of. So it could be said that they're random... Sort of like flipping a coin... Except that the chance that it's heads gets less and less as you go.

The Amorphous atomic structure of, say, some carbon allotropes <---- Random!

I know I shouldn't be here, I always get a headache from thinking about this...

But, still:

For anyone who might happen to be unaware of it: Pi is a transcendental number. That is you can't equate it to any polynomial.

As for prime numbers, I remember something about all primes being equal to 6k+1 or 6k-1. Not all numbers which equate to 6k-1 or 6k+1 are primes however, such as 25 (6.4+1).

Now, random stuff! If you mean random as in "absolutely unpredictable", a prediction being something the probability of which is 1, then I believe quantum physics in general are pretty random with the non-deterministic attitude. Now you might argue that it's random only because we didn't figure it out yet, but the figuring out might be random as well. See, you never can know whether you have uncovered all the hidden variables.

Anyway, for some more examples, I think when you send an electron down a Y connection, unless something's messing with the fields and what not the electron will pick a path at random. Though to be sure, it's random because we can't think of any remotely relevant explanation for why it takes the path it does, but it does not appear possible to think of it.

There should also be something about heat never being perfectly uniform due to randomness, in fact Asimov proposed in one of his books that our universe formed due to one of these random fluctuations in the 0 entropy field.

True Randomness can only be achieved through studying the Dark Side of The Force. So officially, I can't recommend that.

Did i suggest a smart looking blue one? :D

What is 'True Randomness'???
How to start an argument with a quantum physicist: "The theory of randomness in wave function collapse is not falsifiable and therefore unscientific."

How about the Schrodinger's cat idea?
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html

Because quantum physics are involved with no way to predict the outcome and the probibility is 50/50... whether or not the cat survives should be random.

Radioactive Decay is not random.

It's based on the concept of Half-Llife. (Not the game)

Put it this way. Say something has a radioactive value of 100.

It's half life is the time it take to get to 50. In another half life it's got to 25, then 12 and a half.

So, no radioactive thing can fully decay, just become so small it's invisible and harmless.

Yes but.

While decay of a certain mass isn't random, hence the half-life, decay of any specific /atom/ is. If one has 100 atoms, one can predict that one half-life later, 50 of them will still be radioactive, and 50 will have decayed. However, if one has one radioactive atom, one hasn't a clue when it'll decay, because it only has two possible states - 'non-decayed' and 'decayed'. It can't be halfway between after one half-life.

For example, think of a random number between 1 and 10. Quickly!! (Apparently, about half of the time people ask that, the outcome is '7'.) I never come up with 7. Therefore I am very close to random. As close as that frog that does half-jumps across the street gets.

Yes, but only as society defines it.

Localized randomness is a fact: Observational randomness will always occur mainly because no obesrvation is accurate - We cannot measure everything.

Meaning all causes/variables of an event, the event/object itself and the results which are invariably changed by observation.

Therefore we can safely say that relative randomness exists.

Whether randomness in an absolute way exists is unknown and probably more meta-science than science.

Yes but.

While decay of a certain mass isn't random, hence the half-life, decay of any specific /atom/ is. If one has 100 atoms, one can predict that one half-life later, 50 of them will still be radioactive, and 50 will have decayed. However, if one has one radioactive atom, one hasn't a clue when it'll decay, because it only has two possible states - 'non-decayed' and 'decayed'. It can't be halfway between after one half-life.

**nod** beat me to it:)

True randomness is coming out of nowhere to a group of people and telling them about the time when a random girl came out of nowhere and spanked you on the ass, saw your face, and turned bright red. Whether you know these people or not shouldn't matter.

NEVER repeat. NEVER!

**nod** beat me to it:)

If the half life of a single atom is random, wouldn't that make the half life of any given amount of atoms ultimately random?

If the half life of a single atom is random, wouldn't that make the half life of any given amount of atoms ultimately random?

A given atom can't have a half-life. A half-life is defined as the time taken for the number of radioactive atoms to decrease to a half of its original value. Half of one is a half. You can't have an atom which is half decayed and half not.

However, it's not /entirely/ random - if you have something with a half-life of a second, the decay time of any given atom is likely to be under a week (random number there). But there's no way to be sure, and no way to predict.

It's weird like that.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592......whatever (http://3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592.com/)
3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128

(Thats the first 150)


6532655319 4060999469 7873338106 3171948173 5348955897

(Thats from 9999950 to 10 mil)

If you like I can get up to about the 20 billionth place right now

It's much easier to say 22/7

By the way, what part of Kildare are you from? Celbridge myself.

MDH
Inacurate calculation there are better ways then this (an offshoot of pollygon calculation)

How about the Schrodinger's cat idea?
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html

Because quantum physics are involved with no way to predict the outcome and the probibility is 50/50... whether or not the cat survives should be random.
No the cat living or not is not random ... but it is about propagation of knoledge

Schizophrenia.