Question about dice...

[KLOBBER]

What I meant with randomized is that the numbers or lines of numbers in the dice file are not sorted in any way so taking 3 lines in succession would yield just as unpredictable numbers as taking 3 lines at random.

That may well be true, but impossible to prove, since it is impossible to "take" 3 lines from any given string "at random."

In any case, the CC dice are unpredictable as they are, and therefore they are perfect as they are.

[john9blue]

The dice file is not "randomized."

That would necessarily involve there being the same "chance" of 1-6 rolling each time, and that is not the case.

The CC dice are unpredictable -- they are not "random," and not "randomized."

How can they be unpredictable if they come from a file? What if you had the file right in front of you.. would they still be unpredictable?

[Thezzaruz]

quite certain.

Fair enough, I'm just going by what I remember Wicked and Andy saying.
But still, even if you get a chunk of consecutive instead of spread out lines why should that affect their randomness???

[Mr_Adams]

http://random.org/

RANDOM.ORG offers true random numbers to anyone on the Internet. The randomness comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number algorithms typically used in computer programs.

[KLOBBER]

...comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better....

Yeah, bigger, better, tastes great, less filling, blah blah blah....

I have read that website's advertising blurbs many times, and they're not very impressive.

The fact is that the website's advertising department has a strong monetary motivation to claim randomness whether it's true or not. Unfortunately, their advertising claims are not scientific in the least bit, which is par for the course with advertising -- it's motivated not by the truth, not by valid science, but by any claim that they think will make them the most money in the long run.

In fact, the website has ever offered any evidence whatsoever, scientific or otherwise, that any atmospheric sound vibrations (which they choose to designate by the rather unscientific term, "noise") are in any way "random."

Why do they fail to offer any evidence? Because in reality, each and every sound vibration in existence is undeniably regular in frequency -- that is the inherent nature of all vibrations -- and therefore ALL sound vibrations, including all atmospheric sound vibrations (AKA "noise"), are, by definition, inherently non-random.

Therefore the website's list is also 100% non-random.

[MrMoody]

...comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better....

I have read that website's advertising blurbs many times. Yeah, bigger, better, blah blah blah....

The website has a strong monetary motivation to claim randomness, but such claims are not scientific in the least bit. In fact, the website has ever offered any evidence whatsoever that any atmospheric sound waves (which they call "noise") are in any way "random."

On the contrary, each and every sound wave in existence is regular in frequency -- that is the inherent nature of all waves -- and therefore ALL sound waves, including all atmospheric sound waves (AKA "noise"), are, by definition, inherently non-random.

Therefore the website's list is also 100% non-random.

Random.org never claims to use the "wave" in any way. On the contrary they use the noise its self and not the frequency. Now before you go off talking about all noise is made up of sound waves. Take the time to understand that there are ways to use this noise without consideration of the wave or frequency.

[KLOBBER]

...comes from atmospheric noise, which for many purposes is better....

Yeah, bigger, better, tastes great, less filling, blah blah blah....

I have read that website's advertising blurbs many times, and they're not very impressive.

The fact is that the website's advertising department has a strong monetary motivation to claim randomness whether it's true or not. Unfortunately, their advertising claims are not scientific in the least bit, which is par for the course with advertising -- it's motivated not by the truth, not by valid science, but by any claim that they think will make them the most money in the long run.

In fact, the website has never offered any evidence whatsoever, scientific or otherwise, that any atmospheric sound vibrations (which they choose to designate by the rather unscientific term, "noise") are in any way "random."

Why do they fail to offer any evidence? Because in reality, each and every sound vibration in existence is undeniably regular in frequency -- that is the inherent nature of all vibrations -- and therefore ALL sound vibrations, including all atmospheric sound vibrations (AKA "noise"), are, by definition, inherently non-random.

Therefore the website's list is also 100% non-random.

Random.org never claims to use the "wave" in any way. On the contrary they use the noise its self and not the frequency.... there are ways to use this noise without consideration of the wave or frequency.

All noise is composed of sound vibrations, cupcake.

It is impossible to utilize any sound without utilizing frequency -- frequency is an inherent quality of sound, just as heat is an inherent quality of fire.

The only way to use any sound vibration, whether it's called by the unscientific term, "noise" or not, without consideration of frequency, is to exist in a mental state of ignorance of the frequency, which I choose not to do. Your ignorance of the fact that sound vibrations inherently manifest frequency is akin to ignorance of the fact that water is composed of water molecules or ignorance of the fact that light is composed of photons -- ridiculous! You may choose to be ignorant of the frequency, but it is still there, in each and every sound vibration in existence, and frequency is regular in each and every sound vibration in existence, and therefore, all sound vibrations in existence, including any and all sound vibrations unscientifically referred to as "noise," are undeniably non-random.

Therefore the static list from that website is also undeniably non-random.

[MrMoody]

sparky
cupcake
mental state of ignorance
Your ignorance
ignorance
You may choose to be ignorant

please do not use these terms to try and troll me.

[KLOBBER]

?

[john9blue]

I have read that website's advertising blurbs many times. Yeah, bigger, better, blah blah blah....

Yeah, bigger, better, tastes great, less filling, blah blah blah....

I have read that website's advertising blurbs many times, and they're not very impressive.

Ahh, klobber, stop editing the beginning of your posts to try and make them funnier. I want to keep track of the conversation without having to read more than 5 words of your tripe.

[KLOBBER]

Really?

You're reduced to bitching about editing and word choice?

Why don't you post on the subject of this thread instead, which is dice?

You must agree now that the dice are perfect as they are.

[MrMoody]

Theory on why the dice ARE random.

Random.org uses atmospheric noise to generate these random numbers. One way I see to do this is by the measurement of time between two independent noises. Assigning a value to this length of time.

value in seconds
• .0001-.0019 = 1
• .0020-.0039 = 2
• .0040-.0059 = 3
• .0060-.0079 = 4
• .0080-.0099 = 5
• .0100-.01119 = 6

Atmospheric noise is radio noise caused primarily by lightning discharges in thunderstorms. (from Wikipedia). The use of atmospheric noise to generate a value in this way would result in a random sequence of numbers. lightning or the time between two lightning strikes is random. Making the statement below false or not true. Unless Klobber can claim lightning or the time between two lightning strikes is predictable. This noise does occur randomly.

In fact, the website has ever offered any evidence whatsoever, scientific or otherwise, that any atmospheric sound vibrations (which they choose to designate by the rather unscientific term, "noise") are in any way "random."

The frequency, sound vibrations, or waves are not measured only the time between noise would effect the outcome. The noise does not need to all be the same frequency or it could be all the same. Still to no effect on the outcome. This shows it is possible to use atmospheric noise to generate random numbers.Therefore the static list from random.org is also undeniably random when created.

value of time given are only examples to express an idea and are no way actual numbers used by random.org

[KLOBBER]

I never said it was predictable. I said it was non-random.

You have not offered any evidence that time between lightning strikes is "random."

Actually, lightning strikes according to the differentiation between the electrical charge in the clouds and the ground. Electrical activity is also quite regular, as it is composed of electrons, whose motion is extremely regular. Regular motion and regular activity is 100% non-random by definition, whether you are personally capable of predicting it or not.

Your personal inability to predict lightning strikes does not demonstrate randomness, it demonstrates only your ignorance, as well as the fact that lightning strikes are unpredictable. As mathmaniac has demonstrated, the requirements for true randomness are more involved than mere unpredictability.

In fact, according to maniacmath, one of the requirements for true randomness is an equal "chance" of each one of a set of variables occurring at any given time. Because it takes a certain amount of time for the differentiation of electron concentration to develop, there is NEVER an "equal chance" of lightning striking at one time or another -- there is ALWAYS a 100% likelihood of it striking at the moment when maximum differentiation is reached, without exception, and there is always a 0% likelihood of it ever striking at any other time, again without exception. Due to the rapid exchange of electrons during each strike, the differentiation is greatly reduced each time, which brings the likelihood of a strike down from 100% during each strike, instantly, to 0% at the very red-hot moment after each strike -- this fact applies to each and every strike. Therefore, all lightning strikes are undeniably time-regulated by this process, and are not random by any means. (100% to 0% is far, far from "equal").

In addition to all that, you neglected to mention the next paragraph from Wikipedia in regards to THE method for observing atmospheric noise:

"It can be observed with a radio receiver in the form of a combination of white noise (coming from distant thunderstorms) and impulse noise (coming from a near thunderstorm). "

The radio receiver in question produces sound vibrations (white noise and impulse noise are both composed 100% of sound vibrations). It is these sound vibrations on which the static list is based. As posted earlier in this thread, all sound vibrations are regular (just as all electron activity is regular), and as such, is 100% non-random.

Therefore, also, the static list from that website is 100% non-random.

[john9blue]

Your inability to predict lightning strikes does not demonstrate randomness, it demonstrates only your ignorance.

LOL!

O wise klobber, please share with me the location and date of the next lightning strike in northern Illinois. I am too ignorant to predict such a thing.

[KLOBBER]

True, you are.

[john9blue]

True, you are.

As are you.

[KLOBBER]

I have not stated that lightning strikes are predictable, so there is no sane reason for you to argue that I can't predict them. I freely admit that lightning strikes are unpredictable, and you're dangerously close to a straw-man fallacy here. Are you seriously under the impression that I stated, anywhere, that lightning strikes are predictable, that atmospheric sound vibrations are predictable, that the static list is predictable, or that CC dice are predictable?

If so, you are gravely in error -- I have been arguing all along that these things are unpredictable.

All you highlight here is your own ignorance and unpredictability of lightning. I'm happy with that.

[john9blue]

Your personal inability to predict lightning strikes does not demonstrate randomness, it demonstrates only your ignorance, as well as the fact that lightning strikes are unpredictable.

Oh, you changed it. How surprising.

So basically, you were trying to insult his intelligence, then when I called you out on it, you retreated and started falsely accusing me of being fallacious.

Pot meets kettle.

[KLOBBER]

His intelligence? Retreat? False accusation? No -- there is no evidence any of those things.

Your entire post is flannel, and makes no sense.

[MrMoody]

You have not offered any evidence that time between lightning strikes is "random."

I have and I will again.

Actually, lightning strikes according to the differentiation between the electrical charge in the clouds and the ground. Electrical activity is also quite regular, as it is composed of electrons, whose motion is extremely regular. Regular motion and regular activity is 100% non-random by definition, whether you are personally capable of predicting it or not.

This only explains what a lightning strike is and does not disprove what i said above.

Your personal inability to predict lightning strikes does not demonstrate randomness, it demonstrates only your ignorance,

I have asked you nicely before not to use this term.

as well as the fact that lightning strikes are unpredictable.

In fact, according to maniacmath, one of the requirements for true randomness is an equal "chance" of each one of a set of variables occurring at any given time.

We agree

Because it takes a certain amount of time for the differentiation of electron concentration to develop, there is NEVER an "equal chance" of lightning striking at one time or another -- there is ALWAYS a 100% likelihood of it striking at the moment when maximum differentiation is reached, without exception, and there is always a 0% likelihood of it ever striking at any other time, again without exception.

Again another truth I agree with.

Due to the rapid exchange of electrons during each strike, the differentiation is greatly reduced each time, which brings the likelihood of a strike down from 100% during each strike, instantly, to 0% at the very red-hot moment after each strike

This only applies to the close vicinity of the first strike.

this fact applies to each and every strike. Therefore, all lightning strikes are undeniably time-regulated by this process, and are not random by any means.

This only applies to each Individual lightning strike As you said above lightning is unpredictable and i agree.

What you fail to address because you can't. My theory is THE TIME BETWEEN two unpredictable lightning strikes. Two events taking place independent of each other. Because they are Independent and unpredictable there is an equal chance of a few milliseconds to a few full seconds of time to occur. You do not need for the first "differentiation" to take place before the second can start. This time between has now become a random event. It is this random event that is used to generate the static list of numbers making the numbers at the time of creation random.

"It can be observed with a radio receiver in the form of a combination of white noise (coming from distant thunderstorms) and impulse noise (coming from a near thunderstorm). "

You can see how one lightning strike from a distant thunderstorm would not effect the strike from a close thunderstorm?

The radio receiver in question produces sound vibrations (white noise and impulse noise are both composed 100% of sound vibrations). It is these sound vibrations on which the static list is based. As posted earlier in this thread, all sound vibrations are regular (just as all electron activity is regular), and as such, is 100% non-random.

Again its not a measurement of the wave or vibration that is being used. I keep telling you its the time between the noise being used

Therefore the static list when generated from random.org is 100% random.

[KLOBBER]

Dude, simply trying to write like me won't make you right.

For that, you'd actually have to write things that were right, which you haven't done. I have already proven that there is absolutely nothing random about lightning or about atmospheric noise.

If it bothers you so much when people call you ignorant, then stop posting statements to which that term rightly applies. It doesn't matter how nice you think you are when you order people to modify what they write -- nobody is required to conform to your prima donna preferences.

Many people are in the habit of calling a spade a spade, and your statements are often very ignorant, sadly.

In addition to all the factors I've already written about lightning strikes, it is also a well-known fact that the Earth has seasons when storms are more likely to occur, and therefore lightning is also more likely to occur during these seasons. Earth's seasons are also quite regular -- each occurs once every solar year. It is all on a regular schedule, and therefore there is never an "equal chance" of lightning striking. Therefore the TIMING of lightning strikes is undeniably non-random.

Using the very same Wikipedia article you cited, I have also proven that atmospheric noise is observed exclusively through sound vibration, and that frequency is an inherent quality of all sound vibration, that sound vibration frequency is always regular, and that electrical activity, specifically the timing of lightning strikes, is also always regular, with at least two separate factors regulating their timing.

Mrmoody has a seemingly infinite capacity for ignoring the truth, but this is not a virtue on his part -- it is a flaw.

Even if you had offered any evidence to disprove any of the many specific facts I gave in support of all of these things being non-random, which you have not done, that still would have only left us with the fact that they are simply unpredictable, not that they're somehow "random." You still have not offered any evidence that there is an "equal chance" of any of these events to occur at one given time as any other given time. The unintelligent mind, when confronted with the unknown, has the automatic knee-jerk reaction of calling it "luck," "randomness," or "equal chance." We are not cavemen, however, and in reality, all of these terms are completely unscientific, and nobody, anywhere, at any time, has ever offered any evidence that any of these things exist in reality, outside the darkness of the primitive, superstitious imagination. This also applies to Mrmoody.

All of these factors are definitely unpredictable, but I have shown that they are also quite regular in timing, and Mrmoody has offered no evidence to the contrary. He has simply claimed, without evidence to back the claim, that there's an "equal chance" of them occurring at any given time, which is simply not true -- they are all undeniably regular in timing.

Regularity is diametrically opposed to the definition of random, and therefore the list is 100% non-random.

Mrmoody's ignorance of the facts and cheap imitation of my writing style do not change those facts one bit.

Dealing with your deep ignorance, Mrmoody, is a waste of everyone's time. Please strive to replace it with some semblance of intelligence, if possible.

[Timminz]

So, I was reading this thread when suddenly I remembered a nature show I saw a couple weeks ago. In part of that show, there was a segment about mountain goats. Specifically, the rams, and their ritual of establishing dominance by headbutting each other, until the lesser of the two concedes.

Keep on butting heads, guys. May the thickest skull prevail.

[KLOBBER]

You win, Timminz. Yours is definitely the thickest.

[Timminz]

You win, Timminz. Yours is definitely the thickest.

You're so modest. You know, very well, that I have long given up my attempt at dominance in this thread.

Long live the alpha-goat!

All hail KLOBBER!

[KLOBBER]

Very odd.