Thread replies: 225
Thread images: 28
Thread images: 28
>>
>>58467952
If you want to rationalize, a number chosen by God (aka the mysterious thing behind quantum phenomena).
Go ask >>>/sci/ or >>>/lit/ on the subject.
>>
>>58468063
you sound like a nigger
>>
199546545351354156
That's a totally random number, because I typed it randomly on my keyboard
>>
>>58468081
You didn't type it randomly though, it can be explained by the determinism inherit in your brain.
>>
>not a single 7 8 or 2
Obviously not very random you fucking pleb
>>
>>58468090
if you smash the keyboard and a number comes out, that number is truly random
>>
>>58467952
it is a number that cannot be predicted
>>58468063
once we understand quantum mechanics fully those numbers will no longer be truly random
>>
>>58467952
randomness does not exist
there is only unpredictability
>>
>>58468095
>the nigger brain does not understand random numbers
>>
>>58468104
It's not. Your cells and DNA has already determined both that you will smash the keyboard and how you do it. Not to mention the fact that the key press buffer queue on your keyboard is not random, and neither is the clearing of this buffer done by the keyboard driver.
>>
>>58467952
check my random numbers
>>
A single number cannot be random. However a set of number can be random. That is you can't discernate any logic on how the numbers were selected.
>>
File: Microsoft Excel - Book1.png (142KB, 1056x564px) Image search:
[Google]
142KB, 1056x564px
>>58467952
this
>>
>>58468124
This. I think there was a beehive entropy generator for generating random numbers but it may have bèen a joke, I am too dumb to know any better
>>
>>58468206
Pseudorandom
>>
>>58468206
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bknodg6X-z8
>>
242644437
>>
>>58467952
a number that is not determined by anything and therefore can't be predicted
>>
>>58467952
algorhythm that takes random data and generated number, faggot
>>
>mfw my number really have to be random and not pseudorandom
https://www.random.org/
>>
>>58468124
>Your cells and DNA has already determined both that you will smash the keyboard and how you do it
proof?
>>
File: 1452808365215.jpg (53KB, 380x446px) Image search:
[Google]
53KB, 380x446px
>>58468110
>once we understand quantum mechanics fully those numbers will no longer be truly random
>t. not a physicist
you are fucking ignorant m8, popsci le quantu meme =/= actual scientific facts
quantum mechanics is fully understood mathematically, and it is truly random
t. physicist
>>
>>58467952
4 <- is a random number
>>
12
>>
>>58468124
>implying the universe is deterministic
>>
>>58468656
Some parts are, some parts aren't. Some are random because we haven't observed their processes yet. Some are """truly""" random because any further investigation is inherently impossible.
Like which protons decay first in a radioactive atom, that's truly random.
>>
>>58467952
One carefully chosen for you by the good folks at the NSA
>>
>>58468656
You can have a hidden variable theory without locality.
>>
>>58468733
prove it
>>
>>58468721
>Some are """truly""" random because any further investigation is inherently impossible.
is this proven? there's a possibility that one day we will figure out how to observe them
>>
>>58468745
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory
>>
>>58468821
this theory provides 0 new experimental and 0 new theoretical knowledge, why do you think nobody fucking uses this interpretation?
this shit is literally reaching the metaphysics territory, how is this proof, what would this theory prove?
>>
>>58467952
A miserable little pile of digits
>>
>>58468890
>how is this proof, what would this theory prove?
This is proof that you can have a hidden variable theory without locality as you asked for.
If you can't even follow a simple comment thread you are certainly no physicist. Both you and I know that and its evident to anyone else reading. Stop larping on the internet.
>>
>>58467952
If I run TempleOS in a VM instead of booting into it, does that limit my ability to speak with God?
>>
>>58467952
Probably a paradox! Does really exist something truly random? More knowledge = less chaos.
>>
>>58468789
Heisenberg uncertainty is inherent to physics. It's not something that can be resolved with more accurate microscopes.
Hell, we're finding that particles aren't even really distinct objects. They're more like little packets of probability.
>>
>>58468950
Yes, as your host OS provides the entropy. The main point about using TempleOS to listen to G-d is not using (((mainstream))) RNG's.
>>
>>58469055
Why does a random number matter when we're talking about God's grace?
>>
>>58469070
The Oracle uses a RNG to choose relevant passages. On bare metal, the RNG is affected by G-d's hand by noise on the hardware. If the RNG exposed to the VM is actually an interface coopted by the host, the host actually controls the RNG, and thus the Oracle.
>>
>>58469033
>particles aren't even really distinct objects
God how horrifying. Language works by presuming the world is filled with definite objects. Our entire constructed reality is a lie.
>>
>>58469146
This seems unacceptable, I'm surprised Terry would let this fly without addressing it. He should get a capture device and record his videos on the real TempleOS.
>>
>>58469186
Of course, Terry is but a fallible servant of G-d working to perfect himself
>>
>>58469165
And this here is exactly why "nobody truly understands quantum mechanics".
Humans are very limited beings but maths allows us to reach for understanding of unfathomable facts to an useful degree.
>>
>>58469033
I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re refering to as particles, is in fact, wave/particles, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, waves plus particles. Particles is not an entity itself, but rather another aspect of a fully functioning wave/particle duality, wavefunction and vital spacetime comprising a full universe as defined by GOD...
>>
File: clarke.gif (1MB, 240x280px) Image search:
[Google]
1MB, 240x280px
>>58469240
>>
>>58467952
It doesn't exist.
>>
319357920, 454232419, 546096917, -462072347, -563618305, 225200098, -87289541, -287706747, 407026058, 330063181, -697702267, 581630713, 570289743, 588424008, 477165302, 51062365, 781975164, 380402841, -651510998, -119919266, 977709881, -701278348, -293532518, -512832666, -365229002, 685418826, 731276017, -746722365, -207537967, -830862955, -991101084, 625475133, -936172138, -215831143, 781775131, 759326762, -439047971, -650679176, -446120944, -49812742, -915745464, 779301321, -461543335, 522649440, -160761914, -789551650, -626618292, -263871354, -111852257, 79993376, 673961453, -527166145, -833062630, -84903817, 800285219, 727232806, -572259021, -964331035, -124555793, 426958216, -594058980, 915875632, -761536302, -549881428, -804510668, 158708368, -466075520, 71995227, -878637869, -711944543, -394438956, 214070275, 505293669, 758802101, 158823553, 125125222, -513148859, -654020824, 970486406, -468832439, -319275820, -846718133, 917864227, -84262299, -989479616, -14345967, -439783869, 399546227, 59104228, -254291489, -234248193, -857580724, -404549046, -680803150, 722984613, -193553876, 996091197, -138162862, 977780632, -673328469, -621060635, -684163313, 72214225, -729219879 -9684270, 663214302, -306746161, -33986980, -317901037, 154089191, -946342111, -331272474, -228997448, -268997707, 345923337, -760421958, -107158367, -91408753, -648329772, -678402137, 564027448, -423256572, -92020294, -258317326, -979402424, -642724439, -716434066, 185963523, -45058663, -617827002, 410450639, -40878513, -848464856, -291744464, 301918931, -27049495, 836421038, 607200450, -445367697, 970792545, 166398335, 749318162, -12113704, 427336570, -608104946, 332572950, 351795049, -54740253, 101522260, -721598071, 170586049, -70634959, -917879974, -136376735, 30542460, 319682866, -4034814, 40545675, -361217056, 611637635, 346125666, 330757141, 555231976, -868122021, -924820468, -927026008, -369435568, 699264434, -842145452, -204413693, 47003126, -44487862, -250119101, -101665948
>>
>>58467952
Indeterminate.
No other definition is useful, just stupid people trying to be philosophical.
>>
>>58468124
Wrong. My neurotransmitters in my brain depend on quantum phenomenon to work. Hence my thoughts are truly not deterministic.
>>
>>
This is the guy who claims to have created an OS that allows him to contact god, right?
>>
>>58471833
>quantum phenomenon
>>
>>58471833
You are on 4chan because some time ago you chose the neckbeard life. When people see a frog they'll think of various things, you'll probably think of Pepe. The sum of events and decisions that happened to you is what constitutes the current states of your conscious and unconscious mind. It's all determined, onii-chan, by the sum of everything that has ever happened since moment 0, not some biggot in the sky.
>>
File: 1477080012017.jpg (206KB, 2700x2106px) Image search:
[Google]
206KB, 2700x2106px
>>58472387
CIA NIGGER GET THE FUCK OUT
>>
File: 1479872325552.jpg (19KB, 431x450px) Image search:
[Google]
19KB, 431x450px
>>58468656
> not accepting that HLVs exist and that the universe is truly superdeterministic
you're just too much a coward to embrace nihilism, anon.
>>
A number chosen by a selection process which has an equal chance of choosing any other number in the set our given number comes from. You'd need to run said selection process an infinite number of times to prove if it was actually equal (presuming it is) and not just tending towards equal in a limited trial size, right? So a random number is a theoretical property of a number and not a number itself, I guess.
>>
public int rand() {
return 4;
}
>>
>>58468418
>atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms
That is an utterly false statement.
As long as a PRNG algorithm passes all the tests that make it indistinguishable (statistically) from random numbers, then it's absolutely fine for all simulation purposes. And for security applications, the PRNG algorithm simply needs to meet the additional standards for cryptographic-grade security, and to be deployed correctly with a sufficient entropy source for the seed.
If you take those two broad application categories (simulation and security), they cover at least 99% of all PRNG applications. So saying that true random sources are better than PRNG "for many purposes" is just plain false.
The only problem with PRNG algorithms is when a poor-quality algorithms are used -- which is entirely the fault of the programmer for not understanding the quality of the algorithm they're using. If you have *any* doubts about the rand() function in your standard language library, then it's trivial to link in a better PRNG library.
But don't take the fact that some programmers are incompetent and then conclude that random sources are somehow "better" than PRNG for "many purposes". That's just not true.
>>
Nothing is truly random. However, psuedorandom numbers do just fine for whatever humanity could need them for. Same thing with pi, you only need like fifty decimals in order to calculate the circumference of the observable universe down to the smallest unit of length measurement.
>>
>>58472853
The great thing about RNG is that you can just XOR together sequences from provably independent sources, and the output is always at least as random as the most truly random source.
I.e., just combine counter-mode AES with whatever hippie bullshit fluctuation source, and you'll always get something no worse than the better of the two.
>>
>>58472387
Wrong. The notion of the existence of God relies on Determinism as a consequence of omniscience.
Indeterminism is incompatible with God.
>>
>>58468090
What if someone makes different keyboard layout and you don't get to see it (tape over the eyes) and write random stuff on it?
Does length of number counts as well?
>>
>>58472998
>>58472387
Take the cosmological argument for God's existence, for example. One of the assumptions made is that everything that happens had a cause. If indeterminism is true, then things that happen don't necessarily have causes, ergo the cosmological argument fails.
>>
>>58471718
someone got it.
>>
File: 1481899338380.png (121KB, 1548x1468px) Image search:
[Google]
121KB, 1548x1468px
69 XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
POOOPI HAHAHA XDD IN BAGIUNA XXDDD HAHAHHA 69 NOOOO RANDOM AHHAHAHHA
>>
>>58467952
A number that you can't predict, e.g. due to lack of information
>>
>>58472956
>I.e., just combine counter-mode AES with whatever hippie bullshit fluctuation source, and you'll always get something no worse than the better of the two.
Okay, I choose to XOR together AES(seed, counter) with AES(seed, counter)
>>
>>58473186
420 DUDE LMAO
>>
>>58468110
>once we understand quantum mechanics fully those numbers will no longer be truly random
>le hidden variables maymay
get out, brainlet.
>>
Something not chosen with any rules.
>>
File: 1481059369533.png (122KB, 1000x786px) Image search:
[Google]
122KB, 1000x786px
EZ PZ SILL JUST CHEQUE MY DUPPLES THEIR IS NO RANDOMSNESS IN 4CHAN IF I TRY HARD ENOUGH I CAN CATCH IT ATE THE RIGHT TIME
>>
>>58473236
Sounds like a rule to me.
>>
>>58472866
>Nothing is truly random.
I've always wondered about that.
If the universe is finite in size, then it suggests that a finite-length algorithm could exist that perfectly and completely models the entire universe. (I.e. an algorithm that calculates all the attributes of every particle in the universe, accurate to the planck length, planck time, etc.)
If that's true, then that tells me that all the "random numbers" we obtain from natural sources are actually exactly the same numbers as the output of some finite-length algorithm.
And since those "random numbers" actually come from a finite-length algorithm, then that means that -- by definition -- they are actually pseudo-random numbers, entirely predictable simply by running the algorithm that perfectly models the universe.
Now -- if it turns out that the universe is infinite in size, then that raises the question of whether it's possible for a finite-length algorithm to perfectly and completely model an infinite universe. But that's an unknowable question, because we can only perceive things that are less than a specific distance away from us, and therefore, we cannot possibly have the ability to perceive anything other than a finite universe. (The maximum distance we can perceive is calculated by taking the amount of time since the beginning of the universe and multiplying it by the speed of light.) Since we can only be affected by things within that radius, it means that the the universe *is* finite in size for the practical purpose of determining what has the ability to affect us. That, then, suggests that a finite-length modeling algorithm could exist *even if* it turns out that the universe is infinite in size.
>>
File: 1445969920593.jpg (62KB, 554x390px) Image search:
[Google]
62KB, 554x390px
>>58473253
so close what a shame kiddoo now check my dubles shmall stuff
>>
>>58473258
Whos to say whatever "algorithm" is simulating the universe doesn't rely on random numbers from its own universe to do probabilistic calculations?
>>
>>58473186
Love the GEB reference.
>>
>>58472956
>from provably independent sources
>>58473210
>Okay, I choose to XOR together AES(seed, counter) with AES(seed, counter)
Just ONE sentence earlier, he said "from provably independent sources".
All you had to do was just remember what you had read ONE sentence earlier.
Just ONE SENTENCE EARLIER.
Just prevent yourself from forgetting that sentence until you reached the end of the next sentence.
That's all you had to do.
And yet you couldn't do it.
>>
The only true randomness is quantum based.
>>
>>58473382
/thread
>>
>>58473258
The universe isn't finite. The concept of infinity could not exist in a finite realm.
>>
>>58467952
The question you need to ask why the fuck am I on a technology board asking a math related question
>>
>>58473382
Everything in the universe is quantum based, so why are things deterministic in the classical limit?
>>
>>58473460
IEEE 754 begs to differ.
So does your brain, since it's finite and can comprehend infinity.
>>
>>58473471
It's probabilistic. The more stuff there is, the more likely it is to behave in the most probable way.
>>
>>58473471
Take a class on Statistics brainlet
>>
>>58473230
666 LMFAOOOOO
>>
>>58473475
>So does your brain, since it's finite and can comprehend infinity.
My brain isn't a realm.
>>
>>58473524
Everything you have ever known and percieved is in your brain. Your entire concept of "realm" and "universe" is only in your brain. You have never experienced something not in your brain.
>>
>>58472818
Are you a functional programmer?
>>
>>58467952
3.14 is a random number, fag
>>
>>58472866
>>58473258
Randomness isn't an intrinsic property of the number source, it's a function of our ability to predict what the next number will be, Randomness is a human attribute. Questions like “is the universe truly random?” don't really make sense; it's just the same thing as asking “will we ever be able to perfectly predict the behavior of every single particle?”, and it doesn't take a lot of quantum mechanics to see that this answer is currently a very definitive “absolutely no chance whatsoever”
>>
>>58473517
69 AYYYY LMMAAAOOO
>>
>>58473490
So in the limit of all the stuff in the universe if its infinit its static/deterministic? If so, its kinda paradoxical. If you take the smallest unit of matter its completley indeterministic, but if you take the universe as a whole its like a static crystal. Really fires up the old neurons
>>
>>58473537
>Everything you have ever known and percieved is in your brain. Your entire concept of "realm" and "universe" is only in your brain. You have never experienced something not in your brain.
Yes but external stimuli influences it.
>>
>>58473572
>>58473537
Your brain is just a pattern matching machine responding to patterns it sees in the meaningless noise generated by your sensory organs
>>
>>58473572
Allegedly.
But simply the fact that is plausible that it isn't influenced by anything external, and your experience is just a total hallucination, means that infinite space is not needed to comprehend infinity.
>>
>>58473013
That's called pseudo-random. It's basically how 'random' numbers we use are generated now.
>>
>>58473571
>So in the limit of all the stuff in the universe if its infinit its static/deterministic?
No. It's just likely that most things will be deterministic, especially non-chaotic systems. However chaotic systems are highly influenced by small perturbations of quantum non-determinism. A true random number from a quantum observation being fed into CSPRNG is a perfect example of this.
>>
>>58473317
If it's an algorithm that we can perceive, then it must exist in our "universe". If that algorithm has some pathway for obtaining random numbers from another "universe", then there's no reason why *we* can't simply follow that same pathway to get access to that other "universe". At that point, we have a door to the other universe, and the other "universe" simply becomes part of our "universe".
For simplicity, let's just define "universe" as the closure of the graph of all the particles that can theoretically affect us, following all pathways (of any nature) those particles have to any other particles that could theoretically affect them. Whether those pathways lead to other "universes" or not is irrelevant -- let's just calculate the complete closure of the graph and let the philosophers worry about what a "universe" is.
>>
>>58473749
>then there's no reason why *we* can't simply follow that same pathway to get access to that other "universe".
Unless its an input only pathway. We already know such things exist, black holes. Information can only go in and not come out.
>let's just define "universe" as the closure of the graph of all the particles that can theoretically affect us,
If we take the hypothetical that quantum randomness comes from an input only pathway from another reality, there is no possible way to determine how that randomness is generated, and therefore there is no way to know if the graph can be closed.
>>
>>58473460
>The concept of infinity could not exist in a finite realm.
All concepts are simply patterns. Patterns can exist in a finite realm. The concept of infinity is a pattern. Therefore, the concept of infinity can exist in a finite realm.
>>58473475
>IEEE 754 begs to differ.
Great example.
Also, it's interesting to note the fact that "infinity" can be fully defined using a finite number of words or symbols. For example, if you ask the question "what is the largest integer?", you can define "infinity" to represent the non-existent answer to that question. Note that the previous sentence contains a finite number of characters.
>>
>>58473568
420 BLAZ3 IT LMFAO XDXDXDXDLOLILOLLOLOLLROFLLLL
>>
>>58468703
>implying it isn't
>>58468626
see modern science
>>58471833
>quantum phenomenon
>>
>>58474024
This post was all memes and no arguements. You should be ashamed of yourself brainlet.
>>
>>58473471
>>58473490
have a billion people flip coins all at once, it doesn't matter if some are tails, some are heads, overall there will be 50% heads and 50% tails, it would become homogenous at that scale
>>
>>58473831
Yes, it's possible that there are particles that have the inherent ability to generate randomness in one or more of their measurements.
That's basically another way of saying that those particles have some physical property that no algorithm can model.
In that case, my proposed universal modelling algorithm could not exist. So some natural sources of random numbers might, in fact, not be pseudo-random.
>>
>>58474091
Have a billion people measure radioactive decay and use a timestamp each time a beta-decay occurs, input this into a CSPRNG and after 1 second every single person will have a different number.
>>
>>58474041
>memes
There are no memes in my post, what the fuck are you talking about? Just because I answered short, with few words and with implication arrows, doesn't mean that it's wrong.
>>
>>58474141
>There are no memes in my post
>>
>>58474169
Please explain to me what you think a meme is. Ridiculing you for your choice of words is not a "meme".
>>
>>58474182
In your case you used the "short quip, because I think I am so much smarter than you meme" But you did it wrong because you were actually incorrect about every single post you replied to.
>>
>>58474204
You're not even making any sense any more. Take a deep breath and try again.
>>
>>58474217
Sorry you don't have basic reading comprehension. Not really my fault. Put a little more effort into thinking about it next time.
>>
>>58474204
>unironically calling quantum indeterminacy and quantum random number generators "quantum phenomenons"
>continuing to post after being rekt
You are showing all kinds of autism, sir.
>>
>>58474138
what's your point? analogies are pointless if you analyze them that much
by definition an analogy can't fully describe the object you use it to explain
>>
>>58474239
>"no u"
You're just reiterating the post you're responding and pretending it's a comeback, wtf?
>>
>>58467952
A sign from God.
>>
>>58474244
I'm not the retard who used the phrase "quantum phenomenons", but he's not entirely wrong. Microtubules within neurons are subject to quantum-scale effects.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm6Mt9BoZ_M
>>
File: laugh-zimzam.gif (2MB, 311x223px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 311x223px
>>58474284
>"that wasn't me, it was totally another guy you guys"
>>
>>58474295
it really doesn't matter, both of us were right and you're sitting there looking like a moron.
>>
>>58474284
>genetics doesn't predetermine behaviour and because QUANTUM PHYSICS AND NEURONS AND SHIT!!!!
You're definitively a retard, no matter what youtube video you dig up anon.
>>
>>58474308
See >>58474330
If you believe smashing your keyboard is a good random number generator, you're severely retarded and should probably be locked up so you don't harm yourself.
>>
>>58474330
>>58474348
Genetics does predetermine behavior, I never said it didn't. It however cannot fully explain all behaviors, as genetics can only create the topology of the brain and determine the likelyhood of new synaptic locations within that topology. Notice the keyword there: likelyhood.
Take a basic statistics course and learn the difference between probability and uniform randomness. Also quantum randomness is not the sole component complimenting genetics, there is also the chaotic system of social interaction (and the rest of the environment) which is perturbed by quantum randomness, but limited by its own probabilities as well.
>>
>>58471833
they are, think about it, if I pulled out my dick and started pissing on your stupid ass face would you make a random move or would you run (if you're a cowardly manlet, since I'm 6'3 tall) or punch me?
the genetics and environmental factors in my opinion are like the initial seed of a PRNG, and you, the human, is the PRNG, you take your initial data but afterwards your thoughts are predictable
you will never make a truly random move
every decision you make is based on past experiences and fundamental character traits
and like in a PRGN, the initial seed can produce something that is apparently random, if you don't know the algorithm and you don't know how to visualize the data
>>
>>58474402
Just kill yourself already, smashing your keyboard is not the same as generating true randomness and you know it ( reasons were stated in the first post already so fuck off ).
And you can spare me the "but I said X I didn't say Y" back-pedalling routine, just follow the chain of posts and realize what a huge mongo you are.
>>
>>58467952
The primes are randomly distributed on the numberline. Counting the integers in sequence and checking for primeness and then returning the position of each prime gives you a truly random sequence.
Explain why this is even though is still computable with an algorithm. Hint: the answer should involve complexity
>>
>>58474402
>bla bla quantum randomness bla bla chaos theory
It's really simple: Whether you're right handed or left handed is decided by genetics, you're already limiting which side of the keyboard you're going to hit "randomly". The choice of language and button layout is also not random, because of where you are born. Placement of keyboard wrt your hands and arms are not random. Choice of keyboard and button type is not random.
Smashing your keyboard is not a random act.
>>
>>58474440
>The primes are randomly distributed on the numberline
Proof needed
>>
>>58473564
>Randomness isn't an intrinsic property of the number source, it's a function of our ability to predict what the next number will be
Oooh, that could be a slippery slope, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to go down that path.
If you define "randomness" as being dependent on humans' ability to predict things, then what happens when humans start getting better at predicting things? Does that suddenly make previously "random" number sources "not random" anymore?
One of the attributes of "randomness" is the lack of permanently repeating patterns. (Notice that all PRNG algorithms have a finite cycle period, because they all have a finite number of state bits. Therefore, no PRNG algorithm can ever be a source of random numbers.)
The human brain can only process information at a finite speed. What if the amount of information required to express a pattern is so huge that it would take humans 1,000,000,000 years to perceive the entire pattern? Now, if a number source exhibited that pattern in a permanently repeating way, then it couldn't be random. Yet, humans haven't been around long enough to perceive that pattern, because of their limited brains. But I don't want to call the number source "random" just because humans haven't had enough time to perceive its pattern yet.
>>
>>58474434
>spare me the "but I said X I didn't say Y" back-pedalling routine
Typical "poisoning the well" falacy. I really did say X and I really didn't say Y. You are have failed in basic logical discussion and resorted to sophism.
>smashing your keyboard is not the same as generating true randomness and you know it
Did I ever say that it was? You need to calm down there, and learn to accept defeat. Making up strawmen won't help you win an arguement that you already lost.
>>58474474
Samefagging now, are we?
Why are you going on about this typing random buttons shit? All I have ever been talking about is quantum randomness in neuronal microtubles, we know to little about the brain to say how much that effects. Although if you typed 10,000 random characters I would estimate that at least 1 of them could come from quantum effects.
>>
>>58474505
Read the chain of posts. Your autism is showing.
>>
>>58474513
I'm not the guy who said the things about the keyboard, so I don't know why you keep going on about it. I'm just explaining why you are wrong for ridiculing the "quantum phenomena" in the brain part of that post.
>>
>>58474505
>Why are you going on about this typing random buttons shit?
The first (>>58468104) post literally says
>if you smash the keyboard and a number comes out, that number is truly random
KYS already
>inb4 but that wasn't me, all I am saying is ...
You're the one constructing a strawman argument dipshit.
>>
>>
>>58474505
>Although if you typed 10,000 random characters I would estimate that at least 1 of them could come from quantum effects.
Your "estimation" is bullshit and based on a "random" number your neuronal microtubles just made up on the spot.
>>58474529
>I'm just explaining why you are wrong for ridiculing the "quantum phenomena" in the brain part of that post.
So you are arguing a straw man argument? Nice to know.
>>
>>58474505
let's say I as a human make a program that's a "RNG" but it only outputs "1" over and over again, will 1 out of 10000 "1"s become different numbers? will I as a human create something random because of quantum fluctuations?
at a large scale quantum effects become negligible, it becomes homogeneous
conservation of energy and shit, that's why shit can't just pop up randomly out of nowhere and teleport from place to place and bits don't flip randomly, for no good reason
>>
>>
>>58474497
It is no proof for it, but its strongly suspected. Let me rephrase if it makes it easier for you to solve the problem.
Suppose the primes are randomly distributed on the numberline. Counting the integers in sequence and checking for primeness and then returning the position of each prime gives you a truly random sequence.
Explain why this is even though is still computable with an algorithm. Hint: the answer should involve complexity
>>
>>58474529
>I'm not saying that smashing your keyboard will generate random numbers but I am defending the guy that said smashing your keyboard will generate random numbers
Not him, but this is either some serious autism or low quality baiting.
>>
>>58474573
>Suppose the primes are randomly distributed on the numberline
Thank you.
>>
>ITT: What do we do all day? We beat the nigger because the nigger cannot understand what a random number is.
>>
https://youtu.be/8Z5oEkGd-X0?t=3220
topkek
>>
>>58474553
>Your "estimation" is bullshit and based on a "random" number your neuronal microtubles just made up on the spot.
All estimations are "bullshit" but I can guess I am at least within 1 order of magnitude of the right number. if it takes the cooperation of you're entire cerebelum to control your fingers typing on the keyboard, and there 101 billion neurons in the cerebelum, then the likelyhood of a quantum effect influencing an action due to signal amplifcation is quite high.
>So you are arguing a straw man argument? Nice to know.
is replying to >>58474024 a strawman, when ridiculing the "quantum phenomena" is exactly what they were doing?
>>
>>58467952
A number determined by such a convoluted and complex set of operations that you do not know how it is determined at all.
>>
>>58474630
>laughing like a maniac then suddenly crying then laughing and smiling like a maniac again
Terry is actually very frightening. Would not like to meet him alone in a dark alley, he'd probably stab me or run me over with a car or get me high on lighter fumes and suck my cock.
>>
>>58474573
nigga NO!
if that was true then in RSA you couldn't test to see if a randomly generated number has a high chance of being prime before you actually test its primality (so you don't waste resources on large non-primes)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_prime
>>
>>58474638
>All estimations are "bullshit"
Except it's not, it's an estimation for a reason.
>but I can guess I am at least within 1 order of magnitude of the right number.
You can guess whatever, you're not even remotely close to being right.
>. if it takes the cooperation of you're entire cerebelum to control your fingers typing on the keyboard
But it doesn't...
>and there 101 billion neurons in the cerebelum, then the likelyhood of a quantum effect influencing an action due to signal amplifcation is quite high.
See >>58474554
The likelihood is in fact negligible.
>is replying to >>58474024 a strawman, when ridiculing the "quantum phenomena" is exactly what they were doing?
See >>58474586
So, yes, it is a strawman.
>>
>>58474654
You can count out even numbers, but that doesnt negate the proposition
>>
File: tileshop.fcgi.jpg (8KB, 256x256px)
8KB, 256x256px
>>58474679
>Except it's not, it's an estimation for a reason.
And I certainly have a reason.
>But it doesn't...
Except it does, but I was wrong about the brain region. Typing activates large parts of both sides of the bilateral frontoparietal region. Enough that recurrent loops in neurons could easily be influenced via signal amplified quantum effects.
source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517759/
>The likelihood is in fact negligible.
At a large scale quantum effects only become negligble in non-chaotic systems. A human brain is the opposite of that. Chaos theory comes into effect here, butterfly wings are just as important as tidal waves.
>See >>58474586
This doesn't refute my point. So no, not a strawman.
>>
>>58474440
>The primes are randomly distributed on the numberline.
That is incorrect.
One of the attributes of "randomness" is the lack of any permanently repeating patterns.
Prime numbers exhibit a pattern, which can be proved by the fact that it only takes a very small amount of code to test if a number is prime or not. That code serves as a very concise description of the pattern that prime numbers have.
If a number source generated the primes, that that pattern would disqualify it from being random (as would any other pattern).
Prime numbers are also a poor basis for pseudo-random numbers. For example, there is a statistical function that determines the probability that p+2 is prime, given that p is prime. The existence of that statistical pattern makes prime numbers a very poor choice for a PRNG. For example, do NOT use (p mod 256) as a source of PRNG bytes by iterating p over the set of primes. The spacing patterns between consecutive bytes would allow you to make predictions about the next number.
>>
>>58474771
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/structure-and-randomness-in-the-prime-numbers-2/
>we suspect the distribution of the primes to obey no significant patterns (other than “local” structure, such as having a strong tendency to be odd (which is local information at the 2 place), or obeying the prime number theorem (which is local information at the infinity place))
What did he mean by this then?
>>
The numerical output of a function that depends on a stochastic process.
>>
>>58467952
See the last digit of my post number?
That's a random number.
Unless it's a 5, of course.
>>
>>58475055
>What did he mean by this then?
He may have found something in the distribution of prime numbers that can be used as a good source of pseudo-randomness. Or maybe he found some function that you can apply to prime numbers that gives good PRNG results.
I'm going to guess that he's in a branch of mathematics that cares little about the difference between "random" versus "pseudo-random".
I suspect authors in his field use the term "random numbers" when they really mean "numbers that have all the same statistical properties that random numbers have".
To a statistician, there might not be much reason to care about the difference between "random" and "pseudo-random". But in computer science, it's a crucial distinction.
>>
>>58475340
However, your whole post number seems like an excellent source of random digits.
>>58468977
>>58469033
>>58469055
That's three dubs in a row. The odds against that are 1000 to 1. There is obviously some very non-random stuff going on in this thread.
>>
File: qsqusof.png (279KB, 1180x1488px) Image search:
[Google]
279KB, 1180x1488px
>>58475555 (CHECKED)
>That's three dubs in a row. The odds against that are 1000 to 1. There is obviously some very non-random stuff going on in this thread.
He's with us.
>>
>>58475555
Totally not a random number, also checked.
>>
Bump.
Not everyday I can see /lit/ thoughts on /g/.
>>
>>58474765
>Except it does, but I was wrong about the brain region
Can you say "Donning-Kreuger"
Top fucking kek, you didn't even manage to name the right part of the brain and you still claim to be right. Holy shit you are autistic.
>>
>>58475521
Actually i think he means true randomness. Its Terrence Tao he is a number theorist mainly i think. I believe most would agree that he is the greatest mathematician alive today. But he also talks about structure in the primes too so idk.
>>
>>58475872
I was right about the rough number of neurons, which is the only thing that matter about my point, sorry I'm not pedantic enough to appease your autism.
>>
>>58475521
https://terrytao.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/primes1.pdf
>Ultimately, this is because the primes are believed to not
obey behave pseudorandomly in many ways, and not to
follow any simple pattern.
>But there is no known quick and deterministic way to locate
such a prime! (Here, “quick” means “computable in a time
which is polynomial in k”.)
In particular, there is no known (deterministic) formula that
can quickly generate large numbers that are guaranteed to
be prime
>>
>>58475916
>I was right about the rough number of neurons
Lol, now it's a "rough" number? You're way off, retard.
>which is the only thing that matter about my point
Your point is about quantum indeterminism, which has nothing to do with the number of neurons you fucking retard.
You know nothing about what you are talking about and you're just throwing random concepts around and then claiming that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
>>
>>58475933
>Lol, now it's a "rough" number? You're way off, retard.
How can counting something microscopic in the billions be anything other than rough?
The point was about an order of magnitude estimation, read the post history you tard.
>Your point is about quantum indeterminism, which has nothing to do with the number of neurons.
Except I was clearly talking about my estimation of 1/10000 random keys typed can be seen coming from quantum randomness. Read the post history.
>You know nothing about what you are talking about and you're just throwing random concepts around and then claiming that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
This here is classic projection. Getting a little defensive because you can't handle being incorrect?
>>
>>58475916
>smashing your keyboard generates random numbers
>because of quantum phenomenon
>because of number of neurons in this part of your brain
>so every 10,000th keystroke is going to be true random!!!
>well actually it's this other part of your brain
>well actually, it's not the right amount of neurons either
You're a giant moron and you should jump in front of a bus in order to spare your family the burden of having to care for you.
>>
>>58475963
Its the correct order of magnitude, and that's the only thing I was ever making a point about. The region could matter less for the point I'm making, but you clearly have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader, so how could I expect you to understand that?
>>
No numbers are truly random. All random numbers are caused by God.
>>
>>58475961
>How can counting something microscopic in the billions be anything other than rough?
Being off by more than twice is not "being in the rough", it's being completely wrong. You also mentioned the wrong fucking part of the brain, moron.
>The point was about an order of magnitude estimation, read the post history you tard.
Order of magnitude doesn't mean shit, did you even watch the video you posted? How fucking dense are you?
>my estimation
Your estimation is based on some numbers you made up, retard.
>post history
Yeah, I am looking at post history, and you're literally saying that smashing your keyboard is a great way to produce random numbers. lol
Wonder why cryptographs haven't made tonns of publications about this
>>
>>58475982
What the hell does order of magnitude have to do with quantum indeterminism? You're literally just making random shit up because you have a lousy understanding of not only neurons but also quantum mechanics.
>>
>>58475993
>Being off by more than twice is not "being in the rough"
Its less than that. The regions activated are about 90% the mass I was originally talking about.
>You also mentioned the wrong fucking part of the brain
I only ever brought up the region so that I can source the number of neurons I am talking about. The region doesn't matter for this type of calculation.
>Order of magnitude doesn't mean shit, did
Order of magnitude means everything in the case, as rare quantum effects have more chance of happening the more stuff there is. And seeing as its a chaotic system, even the smallest quantum effect could have major influence.
>you're literally saying that smashing your keyboard is a great way to produce random numbers
Case and point of your lack of comprehension. How could 1/10000 be considered a "good" source of randomness?
>>58476013
see above.
>>
>>58476045
>I have no idea what the actual number is, but I still feel confident to say something about "order of magnitude"
>it is a chaotic system because I say so
>it's a magnitude of 1/10000 because I say so
You have no idea how neurons work, do you? You're literally saying that 10,000th of every neuron firing is happening at random, which is simply not true because it would lead to fucking mass death.
>>
>>58476045
>How could 1/10000 be considered a "good" source of randomness?
It's way faster than current prime number finding algorithms (because time complexity is constant), it would be an extremely good source of randomness.
>>
>>58476071
>>I have no idea what the actual number is, but I still feel confident to say something about "order of magnitude"
get an education https://www.its.caltech.edu/~oom/
>>it is a chaotic system because I say so
http://www.igi.tugraz.at/psfiles/eoc-nc-preprint.pdf
>Hence, this result strongly supports conjectures that dynamical systems which are capable of doing complex computational tasks should operate near the edge of chaos
>>it's a magnitude of 1/10000 because I say so
Until I run the numbers on quantum tunneling in microtubles, yea. Although that's at the lowest and most conservative end of my guesses.
>>
>>58476126
Observe the Donning-Kreuger effect, everyone.
>>
>>58476126
>it says order of magnitude in the headline therefore it's relevant
>it says chaos and neural networks in the title, therefore it's relevant
Holy shit you're fucking retarded.
>>
>>58476136
>>58476151
Observe an autist having a meltdown because he can't admit he was wrong.
>>
>>58476185
You just found a random paper on neural networks and you somehow think it is relevant to neurons in the brain for crying out loud.
>>
>>58476199
Its a paper that was in my reading list.
The brain is a highly recurrent neural network, and the math in there applies in most general cases.
>>
>>58476199
TEN THOUSAND NEURONS FUCKTARD!!!!
>>
>>58476199
>>58476208
Now he's replying to himself
>>
>>58476207
Please tell me more about how "Real-Time Computation at the Edge of Chaos
in Recurrent Neural Networks" can in any way mean "the brain is a a chaotic system" ???
You are severely autistic. Also, please tell me where the quantum tunneling in microtubles comes in wrt that?
You are just full of shit and you know it.
>>
>>58476230
>>58476185
>>58476208
>trying to meme his way out of his autistic rabbit hole
top kek
>>
>>58475963
He's right for the wrong reasons.
In most interpretations of quantom mechanics, the universe isn't deterministic. So there is a little bit of uncertainty woven into literally everything in the universe. You cannot use "cells and DNA" to predetermine what numbers he will press on a keyboard and in what order.
>>
>>58467952
a random number is a number which is the output of a function which returns random numbers.
a random number function's output cannot ever be determined beforehand. If it is possible to determine the output of such function, it is not a random number function.
>>
>>58476245
>You cannot use "cells and DNA" to predetermine what numbers he will press on a keyboard and in what order.
No, but you can use keyboard key press buffer implementations to predict it.
Also, see >>58474474
A lot of circumstances, like which hand, which keyboard layout etc, are already given.
>>
>>58476245
>In most interpretations of quantom mechanics, the universe isn't deterministic
You're wrong though, it's only indeterministic at the quantum level. At anything above this, it is very deterministic because the effect on macrolevel is negligible
>>
>>58476245
>He's right for the wrong reasons.
Actually, smashing the keyboard is the one thing he admits isn't random
>>
File: shit_markov_drawing.png (11KB, 640x400px) Image search:
[Google]
11KB, 640x400px
>>58476231
>Please tell me more about how "Real-Time Computation at the Edge of Chaos
in Recurrent Neural Networks" can in any way mean "the brain is a a chaotic system" ???
It's pretty clear. Let's just look at a markov state model of a simple recurrent pair which amplifies signals going into it. If the input coming from "in" is a misfire due to quantum tunneling from one microtuble protein to another, then this basic recurrent network would amplify that signal, and it would be sent to the output as a much stronger one.
It's like dominoes falling. One little push can trigger a much bigger output. Quantum effects can easily trigger macroscopic actions and behavior.
>>
>>58476257
let me word this better
a random number is a number which is the output of a random number function.
A random number function is a function whose output can never be determined. If it is possible to determine the output, the function is not a function that generates random numbers.
>>
>>58468081
it's random, but not truly random
let's say you make a fist and smash your keyboard. the only characters to come out are the keys that actuate when contacting your fist. even if you touch a key, the key may not actuate. none of this dna shit like this motherfucker >>58468124
>>
>>58476260
>>58476286
I think we would have to have an agreed-upon point where the "start mashing the keyboard" happens and when "reading the keyboard" happens. To me, using the keyboard buffer to "predict" how he smashed is simply moving where you get your results further up the chain.
If you start from the point where the thought "I'm going to smash the keyboard randomly" occurs in the brain and end at the keyboard buffer, I am unconvinced that you could predict with 100% accuracy what keys would be pressed and in what order. That's a LOT of tiny particles that have to line up EXACTLY the same way and do the EXACT same thing, and all you would need is one outside source of unpredictability, like radioactive decay (which you cannot escape), to mess everything up.
You could definitely make a probability distribution of what keys you think will be hit the most often that would be reasonably accurate over a long enough period of time. But nothing better.
>>
>>58473187
/thread
>>
Would it be possible to have a random number generator that has a range infinitely negative to infinitely positive?
>>
>>58477828
yes
>>
>>58477898
Actually I should edit this:
Would it also be possible to generate a number in a finite period of time?
>>
>>58477907
depends on the number. The final number woud be finite, so theoretically yes. But the heat death of the universe might happen first, so practically not always.
>>
File: tmp_11478-51q5eL9y8CL._SX312_BO1_204_203_200_-1150387666.jpg (35KB, 314x499px) Image search:
[Google]
35KB, 314x499px
>>58477828
Consider reading this book, famalam.
>>
>>58474503
>If you define "randomness" as being dependent on humans' ability to predict things, then what happens when humans start getting better at predicting things? Does that suddenly make previously "random" number sources "not random" anymore?
Yes, exactly, in much the same way as cryptographic algorithms get “not secure” once we get better at understanding and predicting their outputs.
For example, RC4 used to be thought of as random (aka secure), but then it was discovered that some bits in its output were slightly biased towards 1 or 0. This slight bias essentially gave us a way to predict RC4's output, therefore weakening and ultimately breaking it.
In the same way that a cryptosystem can stop being secure if we can predict its outputs, a CSPRNG can stop being random if we can predict its outputs. (In fact, encryption and deterministic random number generation are essentially identical problems, i.e. you can turn any CSPRNG into an encryption algorithm and vice versa)
Coin flips and deck shuffling used to be thought of as random, but then people started figuring out slight biases towards certain results in the methods that people commonly used to perform these two, thereby weakening the randomness of these techniques. It is the fact that you know about the bias that lets you bet on the result.
>>
>>58474503
>But I don't want to call the number source "random" just because humans haven't had enough time to perceive its pattern yet.
To me, this is essentially equivalent to saying that AES is not secure because you could figure out the internal state after 2^256 messages.
I'm not sure if this is a useful definition of “secure” or not. I'd rather use the one oriented towards real world applicability. In crypto it's often distinguished between “secure” and “information theoretically secure”, the latter being a much harder condition, analagous to a term like “truly random”. But it doesn't stop us being able to use algorithms like AES, ECDHE, RSA etc. in practice and consider them ”secure”, just like lack of “true” randomness doesn't mean you can't still use atmospheric noise as a randomness source and call them “random”.
>>
>nigga says humans are truly random
>forgets the fact that password dump exists
>passwords that are chosen by humans clearly follow a pattern, some of them are extremely popular, shit like "dick", "qwerty" or "password"
if passwords, strings that are specifically chosen to be unguessable, unpredictable, behave like this, why do you think a human is able of random output?
everyone follows a pattern dictated by the initial conditions of genetics and environmental factors
yes, the pattern is hard to predict, but that's just because we lack the sufficient data
and most of the time it isn't even hard to predict, even with all this missing data
>>
>>58477964
Got a PDF?
>>
>>58474503
>>58479890
Btw, an important implication of the term “random” being dependnt on the human means that the same source can be random or not to different observors. For example, say I initialize a CSPRNG using a seed of my choice and give you bits from its output. Assuming you haven't seen nearly enough bits from its output yet to infer it, you would have absolutely no way of knowing what the next bit will be, so to you this stream of bits will be random.
But since I know the seed and therefore the internal state, I would be capable of predicting it - therefore it would not be random to me. This does not imply a cyclic PRNG either.
For example, it's commonly agreed that pi is a normal number (and let us suppose this was a proven fact) - that means that pi's digits are essentially independent, with every digit being equally likely to appear next anywhere in the sequence.
If I pick out some secret location very deep within pi's decimal expansion and start counting out digits (3926...) you would have no way of predicting which digit will be the next in the sequence, even though it's completely deterministic. Simply because compared to me, you're missing information.
>>
>>58479986
check libgen
>>
>>58477907
>>58477930
Define “generate”. You could have a partial number generator that lets you incrementally refine the number by restricting the range.
For example, suppose you want to randomly generate a positive integer. What you could do is map the answer space (positive integers) to the space (0,1] using the transformation 1/x
i.e. 5 would map to 1/5 = 0.2, 100 would map to 1/100 = 0.01 and so on.
This changes your task from generating a random positive integer to generating a random number within the range (0,1], which is very easy to do incrementally: Just keep outputting random digits. The more precision you want about the number, the more digits you have to look at.
For example say the first digit generated was ‘3’, you now know that your number was somewhere between 1/0.3000.. = 3.333.. and 1/0.3999.. = 2.5
At this step you can then stop, because you've already narrowed it down to only being a single positive integer, 3. But suppose the first few digits were instead ‘0.006’ - you've now narrowed it down to being something in between 1/0.006000.. = 166.66.. and 1/0.006999.. = 142.85..
In other words, you're narrowed it down to the range [143,166]. If you want to narrow it down even more, you'll have to generate even more digits.
>>
>>58480068
In this case you wouldn't be able to do a 1/∞
>>
>>58468090
12385918340294583949710823089673984720984+80397849094834574901437929084ytw8942044ty8u29
this is a random number.
>>
>>58480185
Infinity is not a positive integer, so that's not required nor does it make sense.
You could generate arbitrarily large integers, though, if your digit generator keeps spitting out leading 0s.
>>
>>58480234
Yes of course and that's the point.
>>
>>58467952
A measurable function (aka random variable) which image is what ever set you want your numbers to be in.
>>
honest prayers amiss exhortation tobias work make tranquil cheered degrees mouth dawn sorrowed consolations fears cleansest request reinvolved grammarian codes cakes effected joking expansive fantastic might conclude congratulation adversity acquaintance bury dragging
>>
solemnise heaps thunderest sounder victim unhappily expression bands objects couldest ravish compendiously blameworthy goads buzzed mistaken decided troop shoe refund variable edition enlarging urgently profoundly skins problem diluted unjustly male forth submit
>>
corrigible presiding little putting finding sixteenth absent unhappy hearsay union offer bore disclaimers purely protasius plays single there shed pervert fluctuations zealously personally confirm triumph hate authority church etext00 treasury wealthy deliveredst
>>
wife freedom ceasing contact ghosts exhort variance exercised fastings eligible romanianus vary pence holden vaunt illuminating theatrical preparing hated frequent unadorned exceedingly daily lightened forenamed leisure settle some noah inspect unbounded magnitudes
>>
fulfils medicines prated partners pervertedly therefrom powers succour golden liker casts despisest bewail trial woke editions space brighter known thinking paying environeth fervid discreet such enjoined notes attracts experience issued savageness favourites
>>
File: ZWHjC.gif (33KB, 640x189px)
33KB, 640x189px
>>
4
guaranteed to be random
>>
>>58468890
goddamit mate you got rekt so hard, its embarassing to read
>>
File: CMy1PSuWsAEfjLO.jpg (77KB, 600x600px) Image search:
[Google]
77KB, 600x600px
Is there a 'best of Terry' video so I can enjoy all his shenanigans in like 4 hours instead of an entire lifetime?
>>
>>58482839
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbBkAdNc88w
>>
File: cutie junko.png (40KB, 120x127px)
40KB, 120x127px
>>58468921
I opened this thread just for this. Bravo!
>>
>>58468950
Nah, terry always runs it in a VM too, so it's okay.
>>
How does Terry copy & paste into a guest OS that doesn't have special guest drivers?
Does he use a keyboard simulator that "types" the clipboard into the VM?
>>
>>58467952
116413.51456413.45051.3156086.31564846
Thread posts: 225
Thread images: 28
Thread images: 28