Lucky Red Casino

To be or not to be... randomly speaking

Discussion in 'Skilled Play - Card Counting, Advanced Strategies' started by aslan, Oct 29, 2011.

  1. Gamblor

    Gamblor Well-Known Member

    Only thing I'm aware of in nature that is completely random would be the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, like the position of an electron. Or at least no one has proven it is not completely random :)

    Early on I believe Manderbolt developed fractals while studying seemingly random spikes in phone transmissions, but discovered the spikes followed a fractal, self same pattern.

    Also, I recall a study done on the distribution of trees in a rainforest. You would think trees are just randomly distributed in a forest, but what they discovered was the distribution followed a fractal pattern - furthermore there was a correlation of the distribution of the trees to the fractal pattern of the branching of the the tree species, if I recall correctly, which is strange.

    Also brings to mind a program I worked on a few years ago, where I had to render trees in a forest. I initially just distributed the trees randomly, but when doing so, it immediately was obvious that the forest didn't "look right". Had to use a specific, less random algorithm to better simulate a more natural looking distribution of trees (more clumping and gaps). Also brings up the whole brain is a super computer thing, and how it immediately recognizes an unnatural looking pattern, in this case it recognizes that something looks too random, which is kind of a neat twist :)
  2. aslan

    aslan Well-Known Member

    Many things are considered random for all practical matters. Ask ICNT if it can be proven mathematically that electrons move randomly. Also, ask him if he can give you a clear idea of what movement means in the quantum sense. haha The whole idea may get "cloudy." Not be confused with "fuzzy," but not far off either. :laugh:
  3. aslan

    aslan Well-Known Member

    Absolutely true. HAHA Random is as random does. One possibility then is that from now on every random flip of a coin will be heads-- now wouldn't that screw things up!? Is there a law that says one or more of the possible outcomes is impossible? Sounds contradictory to me. :)
  4. QFIT

    QFIT Well-Known Member

    A few comments:

    There exist many pseudorandom number generators. These are algorithmic and vary from simply awful (like the Excel PRNG) to excellent (MarZam II). Nearly all PRNGs built into compilers suck. Marsaglia found that PRNGs that were used to plot results in two-dimensional charts looked random. But, when plotted in 3D and rotated, the numbers all fell in planes, and therefore not random enough for many applications. All PRNGs are deterministic, but some are still “random enough.” The link Sonny provided is the classic set of PRNG tests.

    There exist true RNGs. These are generally based on entropy. That is, they examine physical decay of some sort.

    The Ivy Bridge chips, currently in production and to be released in March by Intel, contain a new hardware PRNG which is seeded by an entropic process. Basically, I think it looks at the output of unstable inverters. But, I haven’t read the tech papers. This is a Cascade Construction RNG. This type of RNG is nearly a true RNG. It may even be a TRNG if not used too quickly. I think I would call it a TRNG for all practical purposes. This type of RNG is also extremely fast. Three billion RNs per sec.
  5. iCountNTrack

    iCountNTrack Well-Known Member

    Quatum randomness based on quantum events are the most random occurrences known to date, which means nobody has been able to discern any patterns so far.
  6. blackriver

    blackriver Well-Known Member

    Not even nature

    In nature, lower numbers occur more often than small. If you go out and measure the length of sticks, the weight of rocks (or handfuls of dirt ), the number of stars in any patch of the sky, the number of blades of grass in a field, etc etc the number one will come up the most followed by 2, and 3 etc .

    you can prove this to yourself by considering that any set of evenly spaced numbers starting with zero (or one) can either have extra zeros (or ones) (and other lower numbers) or you can have the same etc
  7. blackjack avenger

    blackjack avenger Well-Known Member

    random fear

    You guys are scaring me:eek:
  8. Sonny

    Sonny Well-Known Member

    Yes. I've been married to one for many years.

  9. sagefr0g

    sagefr0g Well-Known Member

    perhaps i should really respond in the zenzone, but lemme just say your post is good enough evidence to me that blackjackinfo is a reasonably secure site.:devil::whip:
  10. aslan

    aslan Well-Known Member

    I beg ti differ.. from my wife, I keep getting the same ole same ole! :flame: Random spousity cannot be proven, only endured for thankfully finite spans of time. Of course, View attachment 8230 Sonny's better half could be the exception that proves the rule! :rolleyes:

    Attached Files:

  11. ericfarmer

    ericfarmer New Member

    I tried something like this many years ago as something of a science project. I yanked the chunk of Americium out of a First Alert brand smoke detector, and placed it next to a radiation monitor ((Dead link: that was linked to the serial port on my PC. Each detection caused a modem status register (MSR) interrupt, at which point I used the time stamp counter (rdtsc instruction) to record the time of the detection.

    The idea is that the Americium decays, emitting alpha particles as a Poisson process, meaning that the random times between decay events are independent and identically (*) distributed. If two consecutive intervals between successive decay events are measured, then the first interval is equally likely to be longer or shorter than the second... yielding one random bit (e.g., 1 if the first interval is longer, 0 if it is shorter). Slow but effective.

    (*) But the pairs of intervals are not quite identically distributed. As the Americium decays, the Poisson rate (\lambda) very slowly decreases, which causes a slight bias toward 0 bits in the above approach. A simple band-aid for virtually eliminating this first-order bias is to simply reverse the sense of the comparison for every other bit.

    Finally, this is nothing new. I think the HotBits site (a web source of random numbers, which strikes me as a spectacularly bad idea) used this approach, and a quick search yields a page describing almost exactly the same setup here:
  12. aslan

    aslan Well-Known Member

    The Dilbert comic on your link was so funny, I couldn't resist putting it here for all who don't follow the link to see.

    View attachment 8231

    Attached Files:

Share This Page