Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Truly Random Numbers On A Quantum Computer??
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:50:06 +0000
Organization: Frantic
Message-ID: <86h63cys29.fsf@example.com>
References: <vs73jc$3jepm$1@dont-email.me> <vs7a9c$3pg3k$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="558182"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:92tGKZqplbIU0nOlWDuziQFx8zk= sha1:2XEQfOX/lpuO7weVHdPXiYC35j0=
X-User-ID: eJwFwQcBACAMAzBLO91BDuz4l0Bi6uwVcHPY2r68rQsKfoFS6yOzOKB25dwkTlyjkmFJnv4VxBCc
Bytes: 1994
Lines: 23

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:16:29 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:
>
>> The definition of “randomness” is “you don’t know what’s coming next”.
>> How do you prove you don’t know something? You can’t. There are various
>> statistical tests for randomness, but remember that a suitably encrypted
>> message can pass every one of them, and a person who knows the message
>> knows that the bitstream is not truly random.
>
> Here’s an even simpler proof, by reductio ad absurdum.
>
> Suppose you have a sequence of numbers which is provably random. Simply 
> pregenerate a large bunch of numbers according to that sequence, and store 
> them. Then supply them one by one to another party. The other party 
> doesn’t know what’s coming next, but you do. Therefore they are not random 
> to you.
>
> Which contradicts the original assumption of provable randomness. QED.

I think your definition of randomness is wrong. If the sequence can be
repeated by anyone, then it is pseudo random, not random.

Random is without a predictable pattern or plan.