Re: Random Ideas
- From: Thomas Richter <thor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:58:27 +0100
Nimo wrote:
My explanation for the section1.
let's see this,
case1) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 [no doubt,every
one will
agree that it's total random.]
No, it's not. Its *this* specific sequence, and for that reason not random. Look, why don't you just start with your homework - "randomness" is nothing that can be attributed to a specific sequence. It is something that can be attributed to a specific *source* generating symbols.
case2) 4 8 10 12 16 20 22 24 26 30 32 36 40 44 48 50 64
[what will you call this type of data?]
A monotonically increasing sequence of natural numbers generated by a source that alternatively adds four or two to the previous number. *This* sequence is no more and no less random than the sequence before - it is not at all random. Randomness cannot be proven "by example". It is an assumption you make on a source generating symbols. If your source is such that it adds with probability 0.5 2 and with probability 0.5 4 to the previous symbol, then *that* is a random source - a Markov first order random source.
So long,
Thomas
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: Nimo
- Re: Random Ideas
- References:
- Random Ideas
- From: Nimo
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: Pete Fraser
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: George Johnson
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: Pete Fraser
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: George Johnson
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: Nimo
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: George Johnson
- Re: Random Ideas
- From: Nimo
- Random Ideas
- Prev by Date: Re: Random Ideas
- Next by Date: Re: Random Ideas
- Previous by thread: Re: Random Ideas
- Next by thread: Re: Random Ideas
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading