Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Truly Random Numbers On A Quantum Computer??
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 19:05:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <vspah1$75m8$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vs73jc$3jepm$1@dont-email.me> <vs7a9c$3pg3k$1@dont-email.me>
	<87tt7bo1wc.fsf@gmail.com> <vsaj17$38nej$3@dont-email.me>
	<87h63ak3e3.fsf@gmail.com>
	<probability-20250330153149@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
	<vscrft$2t8mk$6@dont-email.me> <x87jz84f1o0.fsf@somewhere.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 21:05:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a838268cadc40d8a0ecf633714aea4dd";
	logging-data="235208"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yoO3BSwXkWWHpjjb2DV6W"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q+uimCqWIKKxYsyid9XZG4OdtM0=
Bytes: 2109

On Tue, 01 Apr 2025 10:31:59 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:
> 
>> On 30 Mar 2025 14:32:46 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>
>>> |In spite of its superficial appeal, the limit frequency
>>> |interpretation has been widely discarded, primarily because there |is
>>> no assurance that the above limit really exists for the actual
>>> |sequences of events to which one wishes to apply probability |theory.
>>> |
>>> "Quantum Mechanics" (1998) - Leslie E. Ballentine
>>
>> Discarded or not, it’s the definition used in gambling. In other words,
>> people literally bet money on it.
> 
> Discarded in its theoretical use, which is where the discussion is.  I
> think nearly nobody disputes how useful the limit-frequency
> interpretation is.

“The difference between theory and practice is, in theory there is no 
difference, but in practice there is.”

I wonder who said that ... ?