Did Joseph Doob prove that random sequences don't exist? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-20T12:23:10Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/69773http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/69773/did-joseph-doob-prove-that-random-sequences-dont-existDid Joseph Doob prove that random sequences don't exist?teil2011-07-08T05:49:25Z2011-07-09T13:39:20Z
<p>In the book "<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=lMdz84dWNnAC&q=Doob#v=snippet&q=Doob&f=falseBlockquoteblah" rel="nofollow">The Mathematical Experience</a>" it says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>"An infinite [binary] sequence $x_1, x_2, \ldots$ is called random in the sense of von Mises if every infinite sequence $x_{n_1}, x_{n_2}, \ldots$ extracted from it and determined by a policy or rule R is $\infty$-distributed. Now comes the shocker. It has been established by Joseph Doob that there are no sequences that are random in the sense of von Mises." </p>
</blockquote>
<p>A sequence on $\{H,T\}$ is $\infty$-distributed if for each positive integer $k$ and sequence $\vec y \in \{H,T\}^k$ the set $\{n\in {\mathbb N} \colon \langle x_{n},\dots,x_{n+k-1}\rangle=\vec y\}$ has density $2^{-k}$.</p>
<p>But the definition of von Mises seems so natural to me that if a sequence does not satisfy it then the sequence is not random. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/69773/did-joseph-doob-prove-that-random-sequences-dont-exist/69851#69851Answer by Gerry Myerson for Did Joseph Doob prove that random sequences don't exist?Gerry Myerson2011-07-09T04:49:43Z2011-07-09T04:49:43Z<p>At Gerald Edgar's suggestion, I promote my comment to an answer. </p>
<p>There is a good discussion of the questions raised here in the chapter on randomness in Seminumerical Algorithms, Volume 2 of Knuth's The Art Of Computer Programming.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/69773/did-joseph-doob-prove-that-random-sequences-dont-exist/69874#69874Answer by Louigi Addario-Berry for Did Joseph Doob prove that random sequences don't exist?Louigi Addario-Berry2011-07-09T13:39:20Z2011-07-09T13:39:20Z<p>There is an excellent article by Sérgio B. Volchan in the American Mathematical Monthly, titled <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.102.671&rep=rep1&type=pdf" rel="nofollow">What Is a Random Sequence</a>, which discusses how the von Mises-Wald-Church model of randomness is unsatisfactory. He goes on to explain the proposed candidate for a definition of a random sequence due to Martin-Löf, that of <em>typicality</em>, or "randomness with respect to effective statistical tests". Here randomness is defined with respect to a given measure $\mu$ on infinite binary strings; it turns out to coincide with a natural notion of <em>incompressibility</em> of the sequence. </p>
<p>Anyway, in short: there are other natural candidates for what it should mean for a sequence to be random, that turn out to work pretty well (and are beautiful), and Volchan's paper is a good place to learn about them. </p>