From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   Lawrence D'Oliveiro  writes:   
      
   > On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:16:29 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:   
   >   
   >> The definition of “randomness” is “you don’t know what’s coming   
   next”.   
   >> How do you prove you don’t know something? You can’t. There are various   
   >> statistical tests for randomness, but remember that a suitably encrypted   
   >> message can pass every one of them, and a person who knows the message   
   >> knows that the bitstream is not truly random.   
   >   
   > Here’s an even simpler proof, by reductio ad absurdum.   
   >   
   > Suppose you have a sequence of numbers which is provably random. Simply   
   > pregenerate a large bunch of numbers according to that sequence, and store   
   > them. Then supply them one by one to another party. The other party   
   > doesn’t know what’s coming next, but you do. Therefore they are not   
   random   
   > to you.   
   >   
   > Which contradicts the original assumption of provable randomness. QED.   
      
   I think your definition of randomness is wrong. If the sequence can be   
   repeated by anyone, then it is pseudo random, not random.   
      
   Random is without a predictable pattern or plan.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)