To be or not to be… randomly speaking – Page 2

  • blackriver

    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

  • blackjack avenger

    random fear

    You guys are scaring me

  • Sonny

     

    Quote: sagefr0g said:
    is there known stuff in nature that is random?

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

    -Sonny-

  • sagefr0g

     

    Quote: Sonny said:
    Yes. I’ve been married to one for many years.

    -Sonny-

    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.

  • aslan

     

    Quote: sagefr0g said:
    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.

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

  • ericfarmer

     

    Quote: iCountNTrack said:
    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.

    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 (http://www.aw-el.com/ (Link is dead)) 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: http://www.etoan.com/random-number-generation/index.html.

  • aslan

     

    Quote: ericfarmer said:
    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 (http://www.aw-el.com/ (Link is dead)) 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: http://www.etoan.com/random-number-generation/index.html.

    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.

The BlackjackInfo Knowledge Base contains over 200,000 messages posted by the BlackjackInfo community.

Posting and replies to the knowledge base are no longer available, but comments and replies are welcomed on the blog.