Gee, Frank, did you think that the religion aspect would turn out to be the definition of randomness?
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, David Silvus <djsilvus@...> wrote:
>
> And sometimes it refuses to see patterns based on preconceived assumptions.
> http://www.livescience.com/animals/pigeons-monty-hall-problem-100304.html
So, in the Monty Hall problem, can we perceive a pattern in the remaining two doors? When 1 and 2, more likely to be 1, when 2 and 3 more likely to be 2, etc.? I don't think the pigeons did - they learned to make a choice based on probability, not patterns, and I didn't see evidence that they then chose the correct door with any edge.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "nightoftheiguana2000" <nightoftheiguana2000@...> wrote:
>
>American Coin scandal, the machines would still be operating today.
American Coin involved gaffed machines - no randomness there.
>even coin flips are up to dispute:
>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1697475
Diaconis' work proved that if we flip a coin, with the same initial conditions, we can predict, nay, control, the outcome - similar to placing a coin in our palm and turning our palm over - the coin still "flipped" - with predictable results - until we lose muscular control. This is not randomness.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator
Do certain hardware (and pseudo) random number generators decay? Yes, pseudos will even repeat. Do they all? I don't know - counting neutrino arrival rates, e.g., may not. Even with decay, and absent of knowledge of initial conditions, I say such devices produce sequences that are random as far as we can tell. Do we think that we can track past output from such devices and discern a future pattern? I don't.
I think that's Frank's question - 3 reds in a row so now bet black (or red)?, trip 6s in a row so now hold a single 6?
