Yep. No particular surprise. But cool article. And your posts are ones that I look forward to. - Side note that many years ago, days of HP calculators and very first round of PC, a friend and I needed to generate random numbers. We used a method that does okay on a cycle or two, but eventually converges. Well, it's the old debbil of truncation. Found out later that we weren't alone. John von Neumann had tried a similar strategy. I understand he got that it didn't work a little more quickly than we did.
[–]TheBuddha[S]0 points
3 points
3 points
(+3|-0)
ago
Randomness is exceedingly difficult for humans to generate and very few things are believed to be true random.
My CCP and SCP caught up with each other, so I figured it was time to submit some serious stuff again. I got tired of rebutting the stupid responses, so I took a long break.
Yep. My breaks are prolonged. And I bother to log in . . not very often. - The argument is that all processes are deterministic, however we imperfect beings lack the ability to gather sufficient or relevant information. We make models that estimate outcomes. And then there's cryptographic process, and I wish that I were not pushing 70, and this came more readily to me b/c it's fascinating. In particular asymmetric process: public v private key. regards - c
[–] cdinvb 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Yep. No particular surprise. But cool article. And your posts are ones that I look forward to. - Side note that many years ago, days of HP calculators and very first round of PC, a friend and I needed to generate random numbers. We used a method that does okay on a cycle or two, but eventually converges. Well, it's the old debbil of truncation. Found out later that we weren't alone. John von Neumann had tried a similar strategy. I understand he got that it didn't work a little more quickly than we did.
[–] TheBuddha [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Randomness is exceedingly difficult for humans to generate and very few things are believed to be true random.
My CCP and SCP caught up with each other, so I figured it was time to submit some serious stuff again. I got tired of rebutting the stupid responses, so I took a long break.
[–] cdinvb 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Yep. My breaks are prolonged. And I bother to log in . . not very often. - The argument is that all processes are deterministic, however we imperfect beings lack the ability to gather sufficient or relevant information. We make models that estimate outcomes. And then there's cryptographic process, and I wish that I were not pushing 70, and this came more readily to me b/c it's fascinating. In particular asymmetric process: public v private key. regards - c