Talk:Random number

Discrete and uniform only?

The current definition (selecting from a set) implies that random numbers can only be selected from uniform and discrete probability distributions. Isn't a number selected from a non-uniform distribution also a "random number", and isn't a real number selected by some continuous probability distribution also a "random number"? Or is there some other term for these? --Delirium 22:14, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

I (the person who rewrote the article) am not a mathematician - go ahead and fix this. Morwen 22:15, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not either, which is why I was asking. =P --Delirium 22:20, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

But you know what 'uniform and discrete probability distributions' means! Or at least, you used the term. Morwen 22:22, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems random variable may be related to this article in one way or another, but is currently too technical to be useful in the same context. --Delirium 22:21, Dec 24, 2003 (UTC)

Two hardware entries?

How come there are two different sections for hardware random number generators? It seems that the first one seems to say the same thing as the second, but in more detail. Doozer 05:41, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pseudo- vs Quasi-random numbers?

I've read that there is a considerable difference between pseudorandom numbers and quasirandom numbers — the latter being defined by a "clumping" function. I'm not versed in the mathematics though so I can't do much to adding about this to the article. I know that some people (i.e. Knuth) use the terms interchangeably, as well. Anybody care to write up a commonsense explanation of this? --Fastfission 15:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Since it plays such an important role in computer programming, there should be some mention that all random number generation is pseudo, unless it relies on a stochastic physical event such as background radiation exciting a Geiger counter. David Shear 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge into randomness ?

I put up a merge tag because I feel that the discussion here is mostly redundant with the randomness article (And, what's more, the randomness article is now still pretty crappy :-P).

Maybe a short piece could be left on the specific meaning of "randomn number" in statistics, but that's not what most of the article is about. Flammifer 07:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Interval

Why is the interval [0,1)? Why not a closed interval? CoolGuy 15:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Example in article

The article says of the digits of π:

They are statistically independent in that no pattern has ever been found in them...

But it appears they are not statistically independent in the sense of the definition a few lines earlier: knowing which digits have already been listed gives complete information about the next digit. Maybe a statistician could edit the article to resolve this conflict? CMummert 16:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Total rewrite needed. Total.

There are few Wikipedia articles that show such a complete lack of understanding of their subject matter as this one does, no matter how well-intentioned the writer may have been. It would be difficult to find even one sentence here that is correct. The entire article needs a rewrite, from scratch, by someone who knows what they are talking about.

I also hereby propose that all articles to be edited include an alert: "Please contribute to or modify article only if you know what you're talking about.Daqu 19:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you just rewrite it then, if you're the person who knows so much about the subject? It is only four paragraphs long. --Fastfission 20:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I was under the impression that the custom in Wikipedia was to at least discuss a major change with others (no matter how ignorant or rude they may be), if possible, before implementing it.Daqu 20:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the custom is to place a notice if you are planning to rewrite the article, or think that it needs major revisions. Your notice didn't imply to me that you were planning to edit the article; it came across as just a complaint about the current state. I hope you are planning to rewrite the article, because I agree that somebody needs to do it, but that somebody isn't me.

The custom is also to encourage everyone to feel welcome to edit articles, which doesn't go along with the notice you proposed. CMummert 21:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Count me out of that custom! I do not personally welcome people to edit articles if they have no idea what they are talking about vis-à-vis the subject of the article.Daqu 20:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that, for now, this article should just redirect to statistical randomness. The bulk of the material that used to be here was moved there, and what is left is in a sad state. I'll wait a couple of days before doing it. CMummert 21:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

rewrite

Regarding the discussion from 2006 above: I wasn't a participant but I think the article is still in need of a rewrite. I'll see if I can come up with proposals, but I'd hope for it to discuss statistical randomness, pseudo-randomness in terms of computational complexity, computational randomness, arithmetic randomness, set-theoretic randomness, and maybe more. In particular I saw a set theoretic definition that I had hoped to find out more about (I don't know much set theory). It said something like (my maybe screwed up paraphrase): let M be an inner model of an ambient universe V. Let x be a real in V's real unit interval (0,1). We say x is random with regard to M if x is not in any measure-zero subset of M's real unit interval. I may have that wrong, but it went something like that, and I hoped to understand it better from here. Won't V normally have reals that are not in M at all? Ping: User:Trovatore. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:78DC (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)