[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 6:57:41 PM UTC+12, Paul Rubin wrote: >> Every time somebody tries to point to an example of a ?topic that is >> beyond the reach of science?, it seems to get knocked over eventually. > > Generate a sequence of "random" bits from your favorite physical source > (radioactive decay, quantum entanglement, or whatever). Is the sequence > really algorithmically random (like in Kolmogorov randomness)? This is > scientifically unknowable. The definition of ?random? is ?unknowable?. So all you are stating is a tautology.

- Prev by Date:
**Errors in installation of matplotlib and pandas on Macbook** - Next by Date:
**Can math.atan2 return INF?** - Previous by thread:
**Can math.atan2 return INF?** - Next by thread:
**Can math.atan2 return INF?** - Index(es):