Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2797 talk.philosophy.misc:1679 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!mirror!rayssd!raybed2!linus!mbunix!bwk From: bwk@mitre-bedford.ARPA (Barry W. Kort) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Keywords: random? oh no! Message-ID: <42447@linus.UUCP> Date: 5 Dec 88 02:38:18 GMT References: <484@soleil.UUCP> <0XTukNy00Xol41W1Ui@andrew.cmu.edu> <42328@linus.UUCP> <1069@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: news@linus.UUCP Reply-To: bwk@mbunix (Barry Kort) Organization: International Malefactor and Fulminator, Roaring Rapids, ME Lines: 19 In article <1069@microsoft.UUCP> chrispi@microsoft.UUCP (Chris Pirih) joins the discussion on quantum randomness vs. Turing-computable randomness: > ... Besides, is it > necessary that a simulated coin-flip be "truly" random, or just > effectively unpredictable (i.e., that the Turing android eschew > foreknowledge of its pseudo-random pseudo-coin-flip)? The latter > seems sufficient to me. It is enough that the random number generator be unpredictable (by *any* predictor, including one who would cheat and examine my random number generation process). The only way I know to do this is to use a quantum amplifier, so that no one can anticipate the outcome (myself included). A Turing machine can compute a pseudo-random sequence, but it cannot implement a random number generator based on a quantum amplifier. (Such a device would cease to be a Turing Machine.) --Barry Kort