How do we know if a random number generator is truly generating

>>8234475
http://qrng.anu.edu.au/FAQ.php

Does true randomness exist in nature?

Or is it theoretical like infinity or the number 0?

>>8234475
We do. The answer is always "no".

>>8234492
Radioactive decay and (other) quantum events are truly random.

I dont know any other examples, i think they dont exist.

>>8234869
Mainly just the weak force is truely random (decaying radiactive particles )

Can someone define random?

If we simplify everything into the groups:
input
function
output

I currently understand that for an output to be random it cannot depend on the state of the function that produced it.

In other words, an identical input and function will, or will have the potential to, produce different outputs.

Am I flawed in my definition of random?
Does a system that meets those requirements exist?

Bonus:
If something could be random how can we prove that something else caused it?
Doesn't the concept of random clash with causality?

>>8235357
>In other words, an identical input and function will, or will have the potential to, produce different outputs.

That won't do because I can always throw in time as an extra input and since you have no way of going back in time to check the IO, you can never know if like inputs produce like outputs.

>>8235375
Surely a computer clock can be fiddled with to produce the same output.

How do we distinguish something that appears random from something we just don't understand well enough to predict?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform

>>8235396
/thread

>>8235375
>I can always throw in time
Im aware, it's factored into the argument.
I know that we can never prove randomness at our current level of technology.

However let's pretend we can turn back time.
If an event produced different results do we claim randomness exist or is there another variable that cannot be turned back with time?

I literally don't know but these are the questions we have to ask.

i thought random number generators only produced pseudo random numbers

>>8234492
>theoretical like infinity
I thought we got over such things in like 1895.

>>8234475
If it is good enough, we dont
see
>>8235396

So, I guess the answer is, it doesnt matter for all intenses and purposes

ahem
which brings me to this
http://global-mind.org

>>8234475
No true Scotsman

>>8235357
I'd say something that cannot be predicted in any way and each possible outcome has exactly the same probability to manifest is random

>>8234475
> truly random numbers

Unless you base your randomness on something that is truly random (such as we believe radioactive decay is) you won't be getting something "truly random".

>>8235140
thanks for the fix

>>8234475
There are mathematical tests for measuring randomness. Computers can only approximate it, but quantum physical processes can make random numbers, and there are quantum random number generators.

>>8234475
>How do we know if a random number generator is truly generating random numbers?

A good test is to start generating numbers with the system you have created and then if it cicles then it is a bad random number generator.

All pseudo random number generators will cycle so then you have to measure how big is the cycle. If the cycle restarts after just 5 numbers then you fucked up nigga. If the cycle lasts for billions of numbers then you got yourself a good rng.

>>8236383
How is radioactive decay random ? How do you even prove its random ?

>>8239523
>How do you even prove its random ?

>physicists
>proving anything

Niggas don't even know how to prove that 1+1=2 and you want them to show that something approaches the mathematical idea of randomness?

You are delusional. Their IQ is too low.

File: dt011025.gif (78KB, 900x266px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x266px

>>8234475

>>8239634
When Dillbert was fun and didn't suck Drumpf cock

>>8239634
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_nines_in_pi

Is this an intentional reference?

>>8234869
>Radioactive decay and (other) quantum events are truly random.
Truly appear random. Pseudo random number generators appear random too, we just know more about them. Weather appeared random 200 years ago. Eclipses appeared random 2000 years ago. Etc, etc.

Thr Algo for generating nrandom numbers should nr random itself

It fails no doubt

>>8239662
>[current year]
>having a German surname

>>8239667
Probably

>>8239688
The examples you gave are things that couldn't be predicted because they weren't understood.

Quantum events are physically impossible to predict and we understand why like how we understand going faster than the speed of light is impossible. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle makes it impossible to measure both the position and momentum of small particles at the same time. You need both pieces of information to predict where they'll be in the future. We can't get both pieces of information so it's "random" in the sense that it's impossible to know where a single electron will hit a wall before it gets there.