A legal definition of random
Governments and lawyers should 'never decide' what is 'random'
unless they agree 100% from experts in the field (never will happen)
6 fair coin flips
which is random?
HHHHHH
THTHTH
HTTHTH
shuffle 6 cards from 1 to 6 inclusive
which is random?
123456
351624
321456
Quote: 7crapshttps://www.guusbosman.nl/2011/07/15/court-ruling-strictly-random
Governments and lawyers should 'never decide' what is 'random'
unless they agree 100% from experts in the field (never will happen)
6 fair coin flips
which is random?
HHHHHH
THTHTH
HTTHTH
shuffle 6 cards from 1 to 6 inclusive
which is random?
123456
351624
321456huh?
would you consider an unshuffled deck directly out of the box to be random in that case? i would
Understanding Probability
Henk Tijms
That something is wild or complicated does not automatically mean that it is also random.
The task of mixing objects together (lotto balls, for example) through physical
means, such that we can say that the result is a random mix, is even more
difficult than making a good random-number generator.
A useful illustration
of the difficulties involved in this undertaking can be seen in the example of
the drafting of soldiers into the U.S. Armed Forces during the period of the
Vietnam War.
In 1970, widely varying drafting programs that had been run by
individual states were scrapped in favor of a national lottery. The framework of
the lottery was built on a plan to use birthdays as a means of choosing the young
men to be drafted. Preparations for the drawing were made as follows. First,
the 31 days of January were recorded on pieces of paper that were placed into
capsules, and these, in turn, were placed into a large receptacle. After that, the 29
days of February (including February 29) were recorded, placed into capsules
and added to the receptacle. At this point, the January and February capsules
were mixed. Next, the 31 days of March were recorded, encapsulated and mixed
through the January/February mixture, and the days of all the other months were
treated similarly. When it was time for the drawing, the first capsule to be drawn
was assigned the number 1, the second capsule drawn was assigned a number
2, and so on until all capsules had been drawn and assigned a number between
1 and 366. The men whose birth dates were contained in capsules receiving
low-end numbers were called up first.
Doubts about the integrity of the lottery
were raised immediately following the drawing. Statistical tests demonstrated,
indeed, that the lottery was far from random (see also Section 3.5).
I would not consider it a 'random shuffle' as most decks of playing cards come setup in a predetermined order.Quote: heatmapwould you consider an unshuffled deck directly out of the box to be random in that case? i would
I have NEVER seen or heard of a shuffled deck ending up in the exact order as it came out of the box. (without using a false shuffle, even I can do that)
I have seen computer shuffles get real close.
Quote: heatmapQuote: 7crapshttps://www.guusbosman.nl/2011/07/15/court-ruling-strictly-random
Governments and lawyers should 'never decide' what is 'random'
unless they agree 100% from experts in the field (never will happen)
6 fair coin flips
which is random?
HHHHHH
THTHTH
HTTHTH
shuffle 6 cards from 1 to 6 inclusive
which is random?
123456
351624
321456huh?
would you consider an unshuffled deck directly out of the box to be random in that case? i would
You don't understand what random is then.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Quote: heatmapQuote: 7crapshttps://www.guusbosman.nl/2011/07/15/court-ruling-strictly-random
Governments and lawyers should 'never decide' what is 'random'
unless they agree 100% from experts in the field (never will happen)
6 fair coin flips
which is random?
HHHHHH
THTHTH
HTTHTH
shuffle 6 cards from 1 to 6 inclusive
which is random?
123456
351624
321456huh?
would you consider an unshuffled deck directly out of the box to be random in that case? i would
You don't understand what random is then.
ZCore13
... enlighten us what you understand random to be then...
Quote: DRichI am a skeptic. I don't believe anything random exists and I have developed many slot machines.
100% agree.
I’ve explained here a few times in detail how it’s only possible for computers to achieve pseudo-randomness.
That said, well designed RNG’s achieve high enough entropy for practical purposes.
Quote: DRichI am a skeptic. I don't believe anything random exists
What they use for gaming purposes
is random enough, that's all you
need to know. Absolute pure
unadulterated random would be useless
in gaming.
Quote: EvenBobWhat they use for gaming purposes
is random enough, that's all you
need to know. Absolute pure
unadulterated random would be useless
in gaming.
"useless" is kind of harsh... it's more a case of the cost to get to true random wouldn't be worth the return you would get.
Quote: heatmap
... enlighten us what you understand random to be then...
No need if you think a machine putting cards in exact order, including suits, over and over and over again is random.
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13No need if you think a machine putting cards in exact order, including suits, over and over and over again is random.
ZCore13
no i said that at one point a shuffler could come to the "shuffle" of it being in the exact order. that it was an order. not that it could be shuffled repeatedly into that order.
Quote: DRichI am a skeptic. I don't believe anything random exists and I have developed many slot machines.
That’s not skepticism. That’s anti-science.
#quantummechanics #howstuffworks
I'd say, what really protects a game of craps, is the lack of measuring devices, and known characteristics of the particular table and the die being used at the moment.
FYI, the more you know...
Quote: rxwineI assume if you knew enough properties of something and the environment it is in, it can be more and more predictable as a result, to a point where it is effectively non-random.
I'd say, what really protects a game of craps, is the lack of measuring devices, and known characteristics of the particular table and the die being used at the moment.
FYI, the more you know...
Something being considered non-random doesn’t need to be fully predictable, only slightly predictable.
Quote: EvenBobWhat they use for gaming purposes
is random enough, that's all you
need to know. Absolute pure
unadulterated random would be useless
in gaming.
Again, I am not sure if anything random exists. I am not just talking about slot machines.. I believe everything is cause and effect.
Quote: rxwineI assume if you knew enough properties of something and the environment it is in, it can be more and more predictable as a result, to a point where it is effectively non-random.
Yes, this is exactly how I feel. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it is random.
Useless? Hardly. Overkill perhaps, but not useless.Quote: EvenBobWhat they use for gaming purposes
is random enough, that's all you
need to know. Absolute pure
unadulterated random would be useless
in gaming.
A new deck of cards is not random. After all, knowing it’s new, predefines the order. If you flip two cards on that deck, all of us can predict the next 11. Flip one more, and we’ll predict the next 12. Flip one more, and we all ought to be able to predict the next 25. That’s not random.
On the other hand, without knowing it’s a new deck, after three or four cards, we should start to suspect and be able to predict with only partial confidence of the sequence of the remaining cards…
Randomness is not a scientific concept. It is semantic.
‘‘Stochastic’’ is a property of PROCESSES.
Most of the conversation here is about observed RESULTS. It is impossible to define an observed sequence as ‘random’, it has no meaning at all.
When a law says ‘strict random order’, it uses vernacular meanings. No order is random, even less strictly.
What the lawmaker implicitly meant is ‘strictly random process.’
And even so, they do not only mean ‘stochastic’ but ‘équiprobable.’
Unpredictable is a not-too-good approximation. Is a chaotic process ‘random’? No. Yet it is unpredictable.
And without patterns.
And probabilistic structures do have patterns, sometimes.
Quote: heatmapwould you consider an unshuffled deck directly out of the box to be random in that case? i would
The only way I would consider that is if I considered the word random to no longer have any meaning
Quote: DRichI am a skeptic. I don't believe anything random exists and I have developed many slot machines.
How about the number of neutrinos passing through your toaster per second?
Quote: WizardHow about the number of neutrinos passing through your toaster per second?
I don't know anything about neutrinos or toasters. But I'd think there are either 2 outcomes:
1. It is random.
2. It isn't random, but we just think it is because we can't figure out how to predict it.
But those are basically the same thing, because there's no way for us to tell if it is random if we can't "figure it out". Hopefully that makes sense.
Of course, I guess a third option, which I don't think you're getting at, is that 3) It is not random and we know why, but that's a moot point I reckon.
Quote: WizardHow about the number of neutrinos passing through your toaster per second?
I don't know that that is random. We may not know the cause but it may be predictable based on the circumstances.
Quote: kubikulannThis discussion seems totally otiose.
Randomness is not a scientific concept. It is semantic.
It’s definitely a scientific concept.
——————
en·tro·py
/ˈentrəpē/
noun
1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
—————
Scientifically speaking, randomness is not a binary thing. There are degrees of randomness when evaluating an RNG algorithm, mechanical system, etc.
Quote: gordonm888So true randomness does exist -but not a in a way that is practically useful for the gambling industry.
That's what I said. Casino random
is kinda sorta random, true
randomness is useless for gaming.
Quote: EvenBobThat's what I said. Casino random
is kinda sorta random, true
randomness is useless for gaming.
no it isn't.. it's just too expensive.
Quote: gordonm888Nuclear decay (which causes radiation from atomic nuclei) and various kinds of quantum noise are completely random from a physics point of view. No determinism is possible.
I agree 100%.
Some physicists are pursuing non-local hidden variable theories that would be consistent with Bell’s Inequality. Though that might be even weirder if it pans out. Lee Smolin (who I think I recall you said you read in the What are You Reading Thread) just wrote a book about his pet non-local theory.Quote: gordonm888Nuclear decay (which causes radiation from atomic nuclei) and various kinds of quantum noise are completely random from a physics point of view. No determinism is possible. So true randomness does exist -but not a in a way that is practically useful for the gambling industry.
I’m not sure I get your point.Quote: gamerfreakIt’s definitely a scientific concept.Quote: kubikulannThis discussion seems totally otiose.
Randomness is not a scientific concept. It is semantic.
——————
en·tro·py
/ˈentrəpē/
noun
1. a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2. lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
—————
Scientifically speaking, randomness is not a binary thing. There are degrees of randomness when evaluating an RNG algorithm, mechanical system, etc.
To my saying randomness is not a scientific concept, you oppose a definition of entropy. That is what I mean: you need the scientific concept, I.e. entropy, to say something useful.
But ‘randomness’ is not the same as ‘entropy’.
(The use of the word randomness in the definition does not make it more scientific. Or should we claim that ‘disorder’ is a scientific concept, too, since it is used as synonym?)
- -
Secondly, this definition is about disorder or unpredictability. It does not say anything about stochasticity of the processes. Typically, Brownian motion or the 2d law of ThDyn are examples of entropy in deterministic environments.
Yet, the current thread jumps from considerations of predictability to considerations of order through considerations of stochasticity. Because, precisely, ‘randomness’ is an ill-defined term — everyone uses a meaning for his purpose. That is what I meant with the word semantic, as opposed to scientific.
(And no one mentioned entropy up till you. 😉 which shows how low the science content is...)
There is no translation of the word ‘random’ in French. In Probability and Statistics we use the word aléatoire . But aléa, aléatoire is more restricted than the English ‘random’. It has only the idea of ‘chance result’, ‘stochastic process’. _Alea_ in Latin means ‘dice’.
In English, ‘random’ can also convey the idea of disorder or ‘unplanned’, ‘haphazard’. Not in French.
We don’t speak of a deck of cards as randomly ordered. Just shuffled: mélangé.
Our word hasard has no English equivalent: risk? chance? luck? (Certainly not ‘hazard’ which in French is ...risque. With a negative meaning. Actuarians and insurance companies talk of risque when evaluating damage probabilities. Soldiers or firemen receive a prime de risque, a ‘danger premium’.)
(And yet your ‘risky’ is best translated as hasardeux.) — Oooh the headache!
Therefore the need for exactly defined (and interlingual) scientific concepts when we want to discuss math, particle physics or philosophy!
Quote: unJonSome physicists are pursuing non-local hidden variable theories that would be consistent with Bell’s Inequality. Though that might be even weirder if it pans out. Lee Smolin (who I think I recall you said you read in the What are You Reading Thread) just wrote a book about his pet non-local theory.
I believe Bohm's pilot wave theory is one quantum theory that satisfies determinism, but also satisfies Bell's theorem because it is non-local.
I'm with the crowd that says random merely means unknown. William Briggs discusses this kind of question from the point of view of a Bayesian interpretation of probability. Have a look at: https://wmbriggs.com/post/13075/
--helpmespock
Carry on. Be sure to keep it civil. You know who you are.
Quote: helpmespockI'm with the crowd that says random merely means unknown.
Some random outcomes can be
understood if you study them
long enough. At least parts of
them can, and in gambling that's
all you need. Knowing when not
to bet is important because
it's not as much about winning
as it is controlling your losses.
I respectfully disagree.Quote: beachbumbabsPlease excuse the critique, but this is one of the most interesting debates on here in years. Well done.
Carry on. Be sure to keep it civil. You know who you are.
I feel like reading a debate like this:
— A sentence must begin with a capital and end with a point.
— No!! A sentence is when a judge makes a point.
— But a sentence can be made in a local tribunal without having begun in the capital!?
First make it clear what is being talked about, and then only discuss it.
— Hot is above 100°.
— Hot is when you see tits or pussy.
— Even in a snowy environment ?
— Why 100? Why not 90, or 200?
— Why refer to the human temperature? Why not 212°, the water boiling point?
— I use the Celsius scale.
— One should use the Scoville scale.
— The what?!
— The scale of hotness of chili peppers.
— No! Hot is legally when you see EMF.
And the winner is:
— When I see it, I know it!
Quote: kubikulannA LEGAL DEFINITION OF HOT
— Hot is above 100°.
— Hot is when you see tits or pussy.
— Even in a snowy environment ?
— Why 100? Why not 90, or 200?
— Why refer to the human temperature? Why not 212°, the water boiling point?
— I use the Celsius scale.
— One should use the Scoville scale.
— The what?!
— The scale of hotness of chili peppers.
— No! Hot is legally when you see EMF.
And the winner is:
— When I see it, I know it!
This whole thread is actually Pennsylvania’s legal definition of random and the entire point was to show what people would do with THAT definition. It was open ended for a reason ;)
Quote: kubikulannI respectfully disagree.
I feel like reading a debate like this:
— A sentence must begin with a capital and end with a point.
— No!! A sentence is when a judge makes a point.
— But a sentence can be made in a local tribunal without having begun in the capital!?
First make it clear what is being talked about, and then only discuss it.
Fair point. But part of the discussion of a definition is defining terms and constraints, and that's what's happened in the discussion - everybody understanding what is actually being discussed. Interesting process of norming and conforming the group.
Quote: kubikulannA LEGAL DEFINITION OF HOT
— Hot is above 100°.
— Hot is when you see tits or pussy.
— Even in a snowy environment ?
— Why 100? Why not 90, or 200?
— Why refer to the human temperature? Why not 212°, the water boiling point?
— I use the Celsius scale.
— One should use the Scoville scale.
— The what?!
— The scale of hotness of chili peppers.
— No! Hot is legally when you see EMF.
And the winner is:
— When I see it, I know it!
Are you critiquing a thread on the definition of random for being too . . . random? How meta.
To those that say random simply means unknown, you’re almost there. It’s a small but significant leap from “unknown” to “unknowable.”
Quote: kubikulannFirst make it clear what is being talked about, and then only discuss it.
These are conversations made up
mostly of opinions, not a class
you paid for where you lose money
if the it wanders off topic. The
guidelines are loose.
https://billmoyers.com/series/on-our-own-terms-moyers-on-dying/
"ON OUR OWN TERMS: MOYERS ON DYING
There is a great divide separating the kind of care Americans say they want at the end of life and what our culture currently provides. Surveys show that we want to die at home, free of pain, surrounded by the people we love. But the vast majority of us die in the hospital, alone, and experiencing unnecessary discomfort. Bill Moyers goes from the bedsides of the dying to the front lines of a movement to improve end-of-life care in On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying. "
Posted in the wrong thread I assume.Quote: petroglyphI miss real news journalists like Bill Moyers. while serfing down a path I came across a 6 hour series he made on dying.
https://billmoyers.com/series/on-our-own-terms-moyers-on-dying/
"ON OUR OWN TERMS: MOYERS ON DYING
There is a great divide separating the kind of care Americans say they want at the end of life and what our culture currently provides. Surveys show that we want to die at home, free of pain, surrounded by the people we love. But the vast majority of us die in the hospital, alone, and experiencing unnecessary discomfort. Bill Moyers goes from the bedsides of the dying to the front lines of a movement to improve end-of-life care in On Our Own Terms: Moyers on Dying. "
I don’t know. Was pretty random.Quote: onenickelmiraclePosted in the wrong thread I assume.
