[pakkuman_shinde]

I was looking into random number generators for programming purposes, and came across random.org.

They went on to say how computer's create pseudo-random numbers(dur! not as if they can do much else), and how they use atmospheric noise to create true random numbers. They then went on to comparing that to rolling a dice.

Rolling a dice is NOT random! There are just many, many factors to figure in.
Some professional dice players have been known to be able to roll specific numbers.

Nothing is random, everything is predictable once broken down into the smallest possible variables.

I'm just looking for an intelligent conversation.

[LoveIsNull]

Quantum fucking physics?

[supersloth]

by this logic there is no such thing as 'chance' or 'coincidence' either, everything is millions and billions of things interacting to create a situation that unfolds exactly how it should based on the equation.

i guess that's fine? maybe they should just rename them likely-to-be-very-difficult-to-predict-number-generators.

ltbvdtp(512);

[LoveIsNull]

Quote

by this logic there is no such thing as 'chance' or 'coincidence' either, everything is millions and billions of things interacting to create a situation that unfolds exactly how it should based on the equation.

There really both is and isn't. So, there is no chance or coincidence and everything is billions and trillions of things interacting to create a result that unfolds congruently and exactly how it should based on the equation which is actually a randomness of the purest form due the essential magnitude of these quantum fluctuations provided by trillions and gillions of entities interacting in what is, as what is, the omnipotence of the universe and this is a telescoping down to a sheer impossibility of existence such that it is because it cannot be and thus here we are now.

[Nikhil_07n]

Nothing can be predicted in this world. Not even the regular procedures.
You can never be sure that <a thing> will happen or not.

"Correct predictions are mere coincidences.. nothing else.."

PREDICT something, give us an example and I'll be your new padawan.

[raziel_]

o i am good a predicting things like when i dont studi and got an F to the exame rly PREDICTING come with ages. if you watch something long time you will now how it react with the world next time you see it you will now close enough how will react again.

[gabehabe]

I hate emos.

[Nikhil_07n]

NoBrain, on 26 Jul, 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

o i am good a predicting things like when i dont studi and got an F to the exame rly PREDICTING come with ages. if you watch something long time you will now how it react with the world next time you see it you will now close enough how will react again.

But still you can't predict your marks. How about a typing mistake by teacher..

Difficult to see. Always in motion is the future.

[KYA]

gabehabe, on 26 Jul, 2009 - 05:20 AM, said:

I hate emos.

No recursion!

[gabehabe]

std::string hate(std::string target_of_hate = "emos") {
    return target_of_hate == "emos" ? hate(target_of_hate) : "meh";
}

[baavgai]

Think about what you really mean by random. The are two assumptions; that a result should be no better than chance and thus unpredictable. We then must define chance. If I have a six sided die, every possible result should be equally likely. Strangely enough, if I roll that die 600 hundred times, I would expect each possibility to show up about 100 times. It one value shows up 250 times, then I've defied chance and failed random. However, this is only true of the given result set. Also, runs happen and the die could still be random, though that appears unlikely.

There is no true random in a computer. However, if the ability to predict the results is no better than chance, you can call it random. As with physical dice, you can't actually call the bones true random in real life with absolute certainty.

Let's posit that random is a function of predictability. Most events that happens can be walked back a cause and event trail, but can I predict it? I fire off a rocket. Instead of going straight up and exploding in pyrotechnic glory, it barely gets off the ground, loops three and a half times, buries itself in the ground and emits a geyser of sparks. Someone with enough forensic skill could probably figure out why my rocket misfired. They could find how the fuel didn't ignite completely, then cascaded in a secondary reaction, etc. However, could my forensic genius have precisely predicted the event?

We often convince ourselves that events have a certain degree of predictability because we have the ability of analyze the event after the fact. As we get more clever, we can analyze more complex events. This analysis is useful and can certainly teach us how to avoid some undesirably outcomes. However, we still won't know for certain how the flutter of butterfly wings or the infamous Murphy will influence the Now.

You can say you don't believe in random. Until you've mastered your precognitive ability, chaos is still undecipherable. You may call events random, inevitable, even preordained; until you can win the lottery with your intellect, it's a moot point.

[brds]

A good book on the subject "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives".

[KYA]

Quote

then I've defied chance and failed random

Made it just now, hehe. You inspired me.

[macosxnerd101]

LoveIsNull, on 25 Jul, 2009 - 10:31 PM, said:

Quantum fucking physics?

Thank you. May I cite the heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that the more accurately you can predict position, the less accurately you can predict velocity and vice versa. There is, however, a balance in which you can have a fairly good idea of the velocity & position (ever heard of orbitals). And the consequences of this theory blow the newtonian mechanics postulate that if you can know the path and velocity of every particle, then you can predict the future out of the water.