* Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? @ 2018-01-10 15:50 Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 16:52 ` Robert Wessel ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 15:50 Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 16:52 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 17:20 ` Joe Pfeiffer ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:50:19 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > >Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more "truly" random than any other PRNG. If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening"). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 16:52 ` Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 16:59 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Robert Wessel 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11/1/2018 00:52, Robert Wessel wrote: > > If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more > "truly" random than any other PRNG. > > If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly > better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening"). We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box and the surface? :) -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 16:59 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 17:00 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:55:29 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/2018 00:52, Robert Wessel wrote: >> >> If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more >> "truly" random than any other PRNG. >> >> If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly >> better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening"). > >We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box >and the surface? :) Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the physical motion of dice. IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 16:59 ` Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 17:00 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 17:16 ` Robert Wessel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11/1/2018 00:59, Robert Wessel wrote: > > Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true > randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which > means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start > from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the > physical motion of dice. > > IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual > source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm. So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and computers? -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:00 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 17:16 ` Robert Wessel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:00:42 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/2018 00:59, Robert Wessel wrote: >> >> Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true >> randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which >> means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start >> from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the >> physical motion of dice. >> >> IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual >> source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm. > >So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and >computers? According to most interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, there are phenomenon that are objectively unpredictable. For example, there is no apparent way, and if QM is correct, no possible way, to determine when an unstable atomic nucleus will decay, not matter how much information we have about that nucleus before hand. We can make *statistical* statements about such things (eg. half of all carbon-14 atoms in a lump of coal will decay in 5700 years), but the individual events are not predictable (there's no telling when a particular carbon-14 will decay). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 16:52 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 16:58 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:52:24 -0600, Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:50:19 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" ><toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? > > >If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more >"truly" random than any other PRNG. > >If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly >better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening"). Or you could use real dice: http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering. Be sure to watch the video. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 16:58 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 21:07 ` David Brown 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11/1/2018 00:55, Robert Wessel wrote: > > Or you could use real dice: > > http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic > > One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering. Be sure to watch the > video. > Could you shrink the whole thing into the size of a capacitor, and make it accessible by electronics? :) -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 16:58 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 21:07 ` David Brown 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: David Brown @ 2018-01-10 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw) On 10/01/18 17:58, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > On 11/1/2018 00:55, Robert Wessel wrote: >> >> Or you could use real dice: >> >> http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic >> >> One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering. Be sure to watch the >> video. >> > > Could you shrink the whole thing into the size of a capacitor, and make > it accessible by electronics? :) > Yes - get a high resolution g-sensor or micro-mechanical gyro, and use the lowest few bits. There is always enough shaking (at least here on earth) to give high entropy on them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 15:50 Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 16:52 ` Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 17:20 ` Joe Pfeiffer 2018-01-10 17:22 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 18:20 ` Scott Lurndal 2018-01-10 20:29 ` Chris M. Thomasson 2018-01-10 22:54 ` Mace Ayres 3 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Joe Pfeiffer @ 2018-01-10 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw) "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes: > Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice. To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:20 ` Joe Pfeiffer @ 2018-01-10 17:22 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 17:32 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 17:38 ` Joe Pfeiffer 2018-01-10 18:20 ` Scott Lurndal 1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on > somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice. > > To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a > source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior > of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient > source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source. Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough? (I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :) -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:22 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 17:32 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 18:15 ` Richard Heathfield 2018-01-10 17:38 ` Joe Pfeiffer 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:22:35 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote: >On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on >> somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice. >> >> To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a >> source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior >> of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient >> source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source. > >Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough? > >(I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :) While was Einstein rejecting quantum mechanics with that statement, the broad consensus is that he was seriously wrong. QM (in its modern form) is considered a massively solid theory, backed by masses of evidence, and tons of tested and verified theoretical predictions. And everyone fully understands that is also incomplete, and in conflict with relativity's understanding of gravity (and relativity also has massive support). Which is why the search for the so-called "Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:32 ` Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 18:15 ` Richard Heathfield 2018-01-10 19:09 ` Robert Wessel 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Richard Heathfield @ 2018-01-10 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw) On 10/01/18 17:32, Robert Wessel wrote: <snip> > QM (in its modern form) is considered a massively > solid theory, backed by masses of > evidence[... It] is also incomplete, and in conflict > with relativity's understanding of gravity [...]. > Which is why the search for the so-called > "Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing... I suppose it's almost too obvious to mention, especially as there are so many great minds involved in the search --- but has anyone looked behind the settee? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 18:15 ` Richard Heathfield @ 2018-01-10 19:09 ` Robert Wessel 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:15:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 10/01/18 17:32, Robert Wessel wrote: > ><snip> > >> QM (in its modern form) is considered a massively >> solid theory, backed by masses of >> evidence[... It] is also incomplete, and in conflict >> with relativity's understanding of gravity [...]. >> Which is why the search for the so-called >> "Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing... > >I suppose it's almost too obvious to mention, especially as there are so >many great minds involved in the search --- but has anyone looked behind >the settee? Well, that would certainly be embarrassing... I wonder if any of my socks are back there too? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:22 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 17:32 ` Robert Wessel @ 2018-01-10 17:38 ` Joe Pfeiffer 2018-01-10 17:48 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Joe Pfeiffer @ 2018-01-10 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw) "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes: > On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on >> somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice. >> >> To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a >> source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior >> of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient >> source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source. > > Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough? > > (I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :) Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them. A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness into it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:38 ` Joe Pfeiffer @ 2018-01-10 17:48 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 18:43 ` Joe Pfeiffer 0 siblings, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) On 11/1/2018 01:38, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > > Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them. > A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness > into it. Could I say the same to quantum mechanics and its implementations? :) -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:48 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 18:43 ` Joe Pfeiffer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Joe Pfeiffer @ 2018-01-10 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes: > On 11/1/2018 01:38, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: >> >> Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them. >> A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness >> into it. > > Could I say the same to quantum mechanics and its implementations? :) Yes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 17:20 ` Joe Pfeiffer 2018-01-10 17:22 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang @ 2018-01-10 18:20 ` Scott Lurndal 2018-01-10 18:23 ` Lew Pitcher 1 sibling, 1 reply; 25+ messages in thread From: Scott Lurndal @ 2018-01-10 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes: > >> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? > >There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on >somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice. When I was at SGI, a couple of colleagues published a paper on using a Lava Lamp as a source of randomness in a random number generator. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavarand ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 18:20 ` Scott Lurndal @ 2018-01-10 18:23 ` Lew Pitcher 0 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Lew Pitcher @ 2018-01-10 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) Scott Lurndal wrote: > Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes: >>"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? >> >>There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on >>somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice. > > When I was at SGI, a couple of colleagues published a paper > on using a Lava Lamp as a source of randomness in a random > number generator. Which the company "Cloudflair" uses today to generate random numbers for encryption purposes https://www.fastcodesign.com/90137157/the-hardest-working-office-design-in- america-encrypts-your-data-with-lava-lamps -- Lew Pitcher "In Skills, We Trust" PGP public key available upon request ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 15:50 Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 16:52 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 17:20 ` Joe Pfeiffer @ 2018-01-10 20:29 ` Chris M. Thomasson 2018-01-10 22:54 ` Mace Ayres 3 siblings, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Chris M. Thomasson @ 2018-01-10 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw) On 1/10/2018 7:50 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > > Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? > Fwiw, you can take a look at some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator Perhaps: https://www.random.org as well... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 15:50 Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Mr. Man-wai Chang ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2018-01-10 20:29 ` Chris M. Thomasson @ 2018-01-10 22:54 ` Mace Ayres 2018-01-11 1:31 ` Dennis Lee Bieber 2018-01-11 12:45 ` AdaMagica 3 siblings, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Mace Ayres @ 2018-01-10 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 7:50:21 AM UTC-8, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: > Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? Are we assured that our human mind/intelligence can know if a number is truly random, or if a algorithm will generate a true random number? If algorithmic, then deterministic? Is the idea of a truly random number an idea, but not necessarily a number that can be proven to be random? How random is good enough? If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 22:54 ` Mace Ayres @ 2018-01-11 1:31 ` Dennis Lee Bieber 2018-01-11 12:45 ` AdaMagica 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Dennis Lee Bieber @ 2018-01-11 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw) On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:54:44 -0800 (PST), Mace Ayres <mace.ayres@gmail.com> declaimed the following: >On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 7:50:21 AM UTC-8, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote: >> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers? > >Are we assured that our human mind/intelligence can know if a number is truly random, or if a algorithm will generate a true random number? If algorithmic, then deterministic? Is the idea of a truly random number an idea, but not necessarily a number that can be proven to be random? How random is good enough? > Pick an algorithm... Run many samples... Perform statistical analysis between expected result vs actual... Many random number generators out there -- some have reasonable randomness, some not... A generator that is using some processor clock may not provide randomness if invoked in a loop as the loop is a fixed duration and could keep reading the clock at a determined interval. Your subject says "dice" (note: "dice" IS the plural, not "dices" -- a single one is a "die"). How many dice per "roll". How many sides per die? (I bring this up as role playing games use 4-sided, 6-sided, 8-sided, 12-sided, and 20-sided [substituting for 10-sided by modulo], and some novelty dice purport to be 100-sided (percentile dice -- more commonly done by rolling 2 20-sided to provide 0-9/0-9). For a single die, random means one should have close to an even number of occurences for each value. For a 6-sided die, 6000 rolls should produce 1000 occurences of each value -- since reality won't be that pure, you have to analyze if the differences still constitute random. If rolling multiple dice at a time, the results should fit a bell-curve -- and again you should have a "truth" value for the bell curve against which to test the actual results. No test will state that something is truly random -- statistical tests rely on probability that the result may not be random... IE: is the difference between "truth" and experiment within 95% of the test parameter. >If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random? 500 samples is rather small... More samples means statistical differences will be more precise. -- Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-10 22:54 ` Mace Ayres 2018-01-11 1:31 ` Dennis Lee Bieber @ 2018-01-11 12:45 ` AdaMagica 2018-01-11 14:40 ` Dennis Lee Bieber 2018-01-12 2:32 ` Mace Ayres 1 sibling, 2 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: AdaMagica @ 2018-01-11 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw) Am Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2018 23:54:46 UTC+1 schrieb Mace Ayres: > If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random? Depends on how you choose. If you take 500 cards and shuffle suffiently after each choice, the outcome depends on your shuffling skills. Result might be quite random. However, if you just write them down in an arbitrary manner on a sheet of paper, the result is definitely not random. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-11 12:45 ` AdaMagica @ 2018-01-11 14:40 ` Dennis Lee Bieber 2018-01-12 2:32 ` Mace Ayres 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Dennis Lee Bieber @ 2018-01-11 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:45:27 -0800 (PST), AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> declaimed the following: >Am Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2018 23:54:46 UTC+1 schrieb Mace Ayres: >> If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random? > >Depends on how you choose. If you take 500 cards and shuffle suffiently after each choice, the outcome depends on your shuffling skills. Result might be quite random. > Don't know if it applies with 500 cards... but 8 perfect riffle shuffles with a standard 52 card deck will restore the deck to its starting arrangement -- so no randomness there. One could probably argue that any number of perfect riffles won't add randomness <G> -- Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
* Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? 2018-01-11 12:45 ` AdaMagica 2018-01-11 14:40 ` Dennis Lee Bieber @ 2018-01-12 2:32 ` Mace Ayres 1 sibling, 0 replies; 25+ messages in thread From: Mace Ayres @ 2018-01-12 2:32 UTC (permalink / raw) On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 4:45:30 AM UTC-8, AdaMagica wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2018 23:54:46 UTC+1 schrieb Mace Ayres: > > If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random? > > Depends on how you choose. If you take 500 cards and shuffle suffiently after each choice, the outcome depends on your shuffling skills. Result might be quite random. > > However, if you just write them down in an arbitrary manner on a sheet of paper, the result is definitely not random. I think we may be in different frames of reference, one defining randomness within a machine/algorithmic frame; and the other from the human frame. In either case, it is human judgement that gives the final approval of 'true' randomness. In one case relying of the 'true' randomness of the machine algorithm; the other relies on what the human says is random. I think stuffing the deck is only relevant with multiple random picks,since the final election is determined where my hand selects a card, which is independent of any shuffle. I can can pick any one of a deck of cards, there is 1:52 chance of getting any card. That is just as random as any algorithm, if we accept that any mental process we have before picking is always random. I propose that our thoughts and determination of which card to pick is ultimately random, though we may imagine that we can pick a card non randomly. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 25+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-01-12 2:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2018-01-10 15:50 Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 16:52 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 16:59 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 17:00 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 17:16 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 16:55 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 16:58 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 21:07 ` David Brown 2018-01-10 17:20 ` Joe Pfeiffer 2018-01-10 17:22 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 17:32 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 18:15 ` Richard Heathfield 2018-01-10 19:09 ` Robert Wessel 2018-01-10 17:38 ` Joe Pfeiffer 2018-01-10 17:48 ` Mr. Man-wai Chang 2018-01-10 18:43 ` Joe Pfeiffer 2018-01-10 18:20 ` Scott Lurndal 2018-01-10 18:23 ` Lew Pitcher 2018-01-10 20:29 ` Chris M. Thomasson 2018-01-10 22:54 ` Mace Ayres 2018-01-11 1:31 ` Dennis Lee Bieber 2018-01-11 12:45 ` AdaMagica 2018-01-11 14:40 ` Dennis Lee Bieber 2018-01-12 2:32 ` Mace Ayres
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox