I understand what you are saying. As you have been taught to understand things. How does humanity advance without new things being discovered. Some of the old things are changed as knowledge increases.
You might find it interesting to read about phenomena for which the timing between events is impossible for us to predict. These include individual occurrences of alpha decay in a mass of radioactive material or atmospheric noise involving lighting strikes. While you may not have access to equipment for collecting such data, it may prove rewarding to learn about how it relates to randomness.
See:
There is a difference between knowing something in math world and knowing some in physics world.
It is provably true that deterministic systems cannot produce nondeterministic output. If you disagree with this, you are just wrong. This has nothing to do with “limiting humanities advance”.
Either your idea is wrong or it’s so poorly expressed that I don’t understand what you are saying. Either way, the literal statements you are saying are just wrong, no matter my perspective.
I am not interested in further discussion unless you share your source code.
1 Like
Have you even considered what doors this opens. Do you know what this is worth? Think encription decription on the fly.
Indeed - But have you considered what a perpetuum mobile would be worth (if it were possible to build one)…
It is indeed ridiculously easy to generate truely random numbers if you have access to for instance a geiger-müller counter, and use that with a radioactive source, at each step, for each generated bit. If you have a simple source of noise like that inside a current machine, you might also be able to use that – you also don’t really need a computer for this.
Is sth like that what you mean by “adding a non-deterministic” element?
Modern statistical testing of claimed-to-be PRNGs consumes literally trillions of output bits.
Do you understand this? If not then ask away. All question may lead to a different way of looking at a problem.
I can make some sense of that and in principle this could be interpreted as true. But in the most generous interpretation, I think this it is only true for generating one single bit. You could press a stopwatch 64 times in order to generate one 64-bit integer - but apart from the fact that this would not be very practical, actually you’d already be losing randomness, since there would probably be correlations between the different timings. Just one truely random seed (however you get that) is not enough to also generate a truely random sequence of bits or integers (of any length).
You are so very close, but not totally correct. This is all I can say about this right now!
Thanks
Johann Strauss, Opus 257. The implications are very real… 
1 Like
Once again, you refuse to show anything. One of two things is the case:
- You have something which you do not understand, but since you haven’t shown your source code, we cannot give any information about it
- You are actually a fraud.
We can’t tell the difference from here. Without actual code to discuss, you might just as well be trying to sell snake oil. Show your code. Otherwise, there is no point trying to make us think of the implications - because your claims are fundamentally impossible.
I want to think that you’re merely misguided, and not actually being deceptive, but again, we have no way to even know that. Show your code.
You know I won’t show my code to you no more than Coke willl tell you the secret ingredents.
Soon I believe the tests on the data will be complete and it will be understood. I have been just sharing what I’m doing with Python.
Then you are irrelevant. Code is not like secret ingredients: you can’t sell us a product while keeping its recipe secret. You’re trying to tell us that there’s something fundamentally different about computers.
fraud would imply malice. I don’t think that’s the case. I believe they are just too uneducated to fully understand what they are talking about. Hanlon’s razor and all that.
Prediction: Once the university finishes its analysis, we’ll just hear absolutely nothing further about this. There will be no followup, no response, no link to the results, nothing.
Yeah, like I said, I want to think that it’s not malice… but from the information available, we cannot know.
If you go back a few months in the forum you will find something like this “Indeterminate system from a determinate system” and dealing with random numbers.
I will continue the updates. Even if I am incorrect. A full post mortum needs to be done. We learn from our failures.
The original post has all the characteristics of a crank. All of them.
1 Like
In the future, remember you can flag posts or ignore a topic, and move on if it doesn’t make sense. No need to keep a conversation going in that situation. Note that I also said this to many of the same people replying to this user months ago.