[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 529x664, chaos.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166532 No.4166532 [Reply] [Original]

How to produce random numbers in such a way that there's no way to predict them even with probabilities?
What I mean is similar to a chess game, where you cannot even approximate which move your opponent will do on the next turn.

>> No.4166538

How to English in such a way that the question flows semantically?

>> No.4166543

it's simple: give the choice to a human. Irrationality will destroy every pattern you could think of.

>> No.4166544

>>4166538
s/you/one
I used the "you" passive voice by accident. No need to get all autistic.

>> No.4166546
File: 70 KB, 618x564, trollface.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166546

That requires free will.

>> No.4166548

>>4166532
the question is how to chess in such way you don't can't compute. Random

>> No.4166553

>similar to a chess game
>cannot approximate opponent's next move

I hope you don't actually play chess.

>> No.4166558

>>4166553
are you fucking retarded?

>> No.4166561

>>4166543
I meant how to produce said randomness algorithmically.

>>4166548
But a bot that plays chess by selecting a random move on each turn will lose against a human with experience in chess.

>> No.4166562

>>4166553
>implying there is a determinable upper limit to potential actions in chess
ishyd study game theory

>> No.4166567

tear up all the number and put them into a hat, shake the hat and pick one without looking. Probabalistically speaking, it will be random.

Assuming, of course, that randomness is possible a characteristic of the universe, which it is not, regardless of what the physicists say.

>> No.4166570
File: 27 KB, 2500x2030, trolleyes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4166570

>>4166562
but there's only 16 pieces that a player can move and they probably wont move the king so there's 15 possibilities which only decreases as pieces are taken

>> No.4166574

>>4166567
And your evidence for this is?
inb4 something equivalent to "common sense"

>> No.4166577

>>4166567
>Assuming, of course, that randomness is possible a characteristic of the universe, which it is not, regardless of what the physicists say.

Hows that global hidden variables theory working out for you chump

>> No.4166588

>>4166577
>global hidden variable
You mean like the wavefunction of the universe?

>> No.4166593

>>4166588
>wavefunction
>a classical variable

okay.jpg

>> No.4166599

If any upper bound is set, the probability of any number will be the reciprocal of that, assuming an even distribution. If no upper bound, then prepare to deal with infinity. Also, the probability of a specific number coming up in the generator approaches zero in that case. You cannot evade probabilities.

>> No.4166598

>>4166574
Logic is our only weapon against the question of randomness, so, in essense, yes, common sense. Just because events at the quantum level appear random there is no good way to conlcude that we just don't know the cause of thier action. Unpredictable is not that same as random. As a scientist to accept randomness as a characteristic of the universe is tantamount to giving up. I refuse.

>> No.4166603

>>4166598
You don't like the way the universe works? Fine, go somewhere else.

>> No.4166604

>>4166544
>s/you/one
NERD

Yeah, me too, whatever.

>> No.4166606

>>4166593
Oh, so you're one of those people who believes by sticking quantum in front of something it becomes magic.

>> No.4166612

>>4166606
Your response is not only false but nonsensical.

>> No.4166615

>>4166603
I smell a mathemetician.
And when the next mathemetician defends his PhD by showing that randomness in fact does not exist... where will you be?

>> No.4166620

>>4166606
i'm beginning to believe you don't quite understand what you're talking about

>> No.4166621

>>4166612
You're the one who thinks the wavefunction isn't a variable because the idea comes from quantum mechanics.

>> No.4166625

>>4166621
No, you don't know what a classical variable is. You don't even seem to know what quantum mechanics is.

>> No.4166649

>>4166625
Generally it means a variable from classical mechanics. However, that would imply you're a pants-on-head retard who believes any non-random theory is classical mechanics. So I assume you mean it in some non-standard way you're not telling us, probably extracted from a half-assed (i.e. wrong) understanding of Bell's theorem.

>> No.4166655

>>4166649
Please stop making shit up.

>> No.4166668

>>4166655
Good, then can we agree that it's perfectly sensible that the theory that eventually replaces quantum mechanics might be deterministic? And furthermore, that failing to look for such theories constitutes giving up.

>> No.4166747

>>4166532

At first I thought ok we can just assume the number-picker is a black box and not worry about how it picks its numbers. We can just keep a running total of all the numbers produced so far, and use the distribution to calculate future probabilities. So at first I thought the answer was no.

Then I realized the black box could be picking numbers that are governed by some strategy, creating patterns in the sequence of numbers being picked. Then the black box could randomly change its strategy over time. So for any short-term sequence you could calculate probabilities to within a certain range, but for long-term probabilities you have no idea. So the answer would be yes.

But then one could claim the strategies-changing-over-time is part of an overall strategy, and one could still find probabilities of when strategies change, etc. So maybe it is still no.

Fuck i haven't a clue. This feels borderline philosophy than it does math.

>> No.4166759

>>4166747
This feels borderline gibberish than it does English.

Just trollin'. Agree with everything else you said.

>> No.4166763

Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science.

Read it. ((faggot))

>> No.4166842

>>4166655
To clarify, the guy making shit up was
>>4166577
and what he made up was
"global hidden variables theory"
which is an obvious play on
"local hidden variable theory."

I presume he was implying that any deterministic alternative to quantum mechanics had to fit into his "global hidden variables theory" mold, but QM does not, and that he thought being a "global hidden variables theory" was a problem.