From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad!fx06.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Robert Wessel Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada,comp.programming,comp.databases.xbase.fox,comp.lang.clipper Subject: Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Message-ID: References: User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 11:16:16 -0600 X-Received-Body-CRC: 1304349553 X-Received-Bytes: 2370 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.c:204201 comp.lang.ada:49846 comp.programming:20471 comp.databases.xbase.fox:188 comp.lang.clipper:3106 Date: 2018-01-10T11:16:16-06:00 List-Id: On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:00:42 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" 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).