[Fwd: Re: bimodal ditribution form counting signs of Pi digits differences]

From: Roger Bagula (tftn_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 11/01/04


Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 16:31:33 GMT


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: bimodal ditribution form counting signs of Pi digits
differences
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:26:03 -0800
From: Roger Bagula <tftn@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: tftn@earthlink.net
Organization: tftn/bmftg
Newsgroups: comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica
References: <clst68$3nf$1@smc.vnet.net> <cm4rh8$6oo$1@smc.vnet.net>

It appears that both this version and the built in ( rule 30 based)
random are Markov based ( depend on their own previous history )
to produce randomness.
It appears that Pi by measure doesn't and is, thus, more "ideally" random.
Questions associated with all such dependent randomness ( not just rule 30)
are well known.
By my experiments the "traditional" pseudorandom
 seems more random than the rule 30 based version.
But still less than the ideal for which Pi seems better suited?
I've been told that my experimentation with this area of thought for my
own personal
gratification is "futile".
It seems mostly that there is a "doctrinaire" tide in place and if it
questions
Mathematica's integrity it is "futile".
That "doctrinaire" tide is not a scientific
 or mathematical attitude that stand up to any critical comment.
Association with such thought patterns is personally repulsive for me as
well.
Many current professional level development systems
give access to more than one way to produce pseudorandom
numbers for simulations. It is well known that not all such
randomness systems are "equal" in their measures of randomness.
Suppression of personal research for doctrinaire reasons
is one of the worst results of a commerial enterprise
in a scientific sense.
Roger Bagula wrote:

>A second crack at a null hypothesis using an
>independent pseudorandom generator.
>Results from this generator are more variable than the Mathematica built in
> as you can change both the seed start number and the irrational it is
>based on.
>It too gives a different result than the Pi digits.
> >Mathematica code:
>Clear[r,s,a,c1,d1]
>s=5
>(*Pseudorandom number algorithm from Forcasting on Your
>Microcomuter,nickell, tab books, 1983*)
>SeedRandom[123]
>r[n_Integer]:=r[n]=Mod[(E+r[n-1])^s,1]
>r[0]=Random[]
>digits =50000
>a=Table[Mod[Floor[10*r[n]],10],{n,1,digits}];
>c1=Drop[FoldList[Plus,0,Sign[Drop[a,1]-Drop[a,-1]]],1];
>ListPlot[c1,PlotJoined->True];
>(* Rowe Count*)
>d1=Flatten@{0,Length/@Split[Sort@c1], 0}
>ListPlot[d1,PlotJoined->True];
>
>Roger Bagula wrote:
>
> >
>>This program is real slow on my machine.
>>Show a lean toward positive differences that is "slight" at 2000 digits.
>>
>>Digits=2000
>>$MaxExtraPrecision = Digits
>>(* Sum of the sign of the differences between the first 2000 digits of Pi*)
>>f[m_]=Sum[Sign[Floor[Mod[10^(n+1)*Pi,10]]-Floor[Mod[10^n*Pi,10]]],{n,0,m}]
>>a=Table[{n,f[n]},{n,0,Digits-1}];
>>ListPlot[a,PlotJoined->True]
>>b=Table[a[[n]][[2]],{n,1,Dimensions[a][[1]]}];
>>(* distribution of the noise that results*)
>>c=Table[Count[b,m],{m,-12,12}]
>>ListPlot[c,PlotJoined->True]
>>
>>Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
>>tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel: 619-5610814 :
>>alternative email: rlbtftn@netscape.net
>>URL : http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>
> >

-- 
Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel: 619-5610814 :
alternative email: rlbtftn@netscape.net
URL :  http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn
-- 
Respectfully, Roger L. Bagula
tftn@earthlink.net, 11759Waterhill Road, Lakeside,Ca 92040-2905,tel: 619-5610814 :
alternative email: rlbtftn@netscape.net
URL :  http://home.earthlink.net/~tftn


Relevant Pages

  • [Fwd: Re: bimodal ditribution form counting signs of Pi digits differences]
    ... bimodal ditribution form counting signs of Pi digits ... Questions associated with all such dependent randomness ... By my experiments the "traditional" pseudorandom ... It seems mostly that there is a "doctrinaire" tide in place and if it ...
    (sci.fractals)
  • T_Wake has no idea what does or does not contradict experimental evidence.
    ... randomness is always pseudorandom, ... Yesterday's technologies/theories often contained apparent randomness ... Temperature/Entropy as the fifth spatial dimension, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What sex/kids are all about.
    ... because, like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom, ... all randomness is pseudorandom. ... Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ...
    (sci.physics)
  • " things that happen for absolutely no reason at all " ?
    ... because, like a dice toss is known to be pseudorandom, ... all randomness is pseudorandom. ... becomes a known causality. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: comparing two randomizers
    ... Galathaea is talking about Kolmogorov complexity, aka algorithmic information content, aka compressibility, where a string is considered random if the shortest program that prints the string is longer than the string itself. ... But programs are known (pseudorandom generators) which produce strings that appear to be random, even though they're not; that is, there's no known general way of detecting that they're compressible unless someone reveals the algorithm+input to you. ... Of course this also casts doubt on the idea that there are any sources of true randomness: maybe radioactive decays would be easy to predict if we just knew the right formula. ... The digits of pi seem to be good pseudorandom numbers. ...
    (sci.math)