Thread: Can a human simulate a random generator?

A few people have mentioned all of the biases. But would it be possible for a person to learn about their biases, until a point where they really can simulate a random number generator because they're aware of their biases and know how to avoid them?

In an infinite sequence, a random number generator is going to make every combination eventually, even "1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1". So any sequence a person makes up will be a valid randomly generated sequence, one that a generator could have generated. So is the answer just yes, that people can simulate a random number generator, even considering bias? Every sequence has the same probability of being generated. The generator is just as likely to generate the sequence "1 2 3 4 5 6 7" as it is "3 9 1 1 7 3 6".

In a randomly generated sequence, as the sequence's length approaches infinity, there should be almost the same amount of each number. '7' might have been generated 8092 times, '6' generated 8011 times, etc. But if a human with a bias were to try it, any preference for a particular number would show up and the numbers would be more like 7: 9055, 6: 5090. Unless the person has a further bias to address this problem, and is more likely to purposely try, after long enough, to cover numbers he didn't before more often.

I'm more confused about this topic than I was before.

In the two sequences I posted above, it was (1) that I made up and (2) that was generated, so DuB's program's result was wrong, and Photolysis was right.

Originally Posted by GavinGill

Sometimes I read these Extended Discussion threads thinking I'll learn something of value, then I stop to think everyone's wasting their time pondering over shit that doesn't even matter, and then I head back to The Lounge feeling as if I'm not quite ready to understand the intricacies of the minds of ED-lurkers.

Oh woe is me, my simpleminded self forever stuck on the shores of the brainy sea...

Well, back to my corner.

Some of the topics probably are pointless, apart from being entertainment to those who find them interesting. They shouldn't be limited to people who have a lot of knowledge about the subjects (I definitely don't. I've never even heard this topic brought up before). If you don't find pointless philosophical topics interesting, there's no shame in not taking part in them.