Timeline for Why do statistical randomness tests seem so ad hoc?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2010 at 14:36 | vote | accept | Jason Orendorff | ||
| Sep 3, 2010 at 5:05 | comment | added | dvitek | One thing that strikes me about the first set of tests especially, and the second set to a lesser extent, is that most any human-generated set of "random" numbers will miserably fail the first set of tests (unless of course they are trying to design the sequence to pass these randomness tests, in which case the sequence is decently close to random...) | |
| Sep 2, 2010 at 23:11 | answer | added | Peter Shor | timeline score: 18 | |
| Sep 2, 2010 at 19:55 | comment | added | Andrew Critch | While an important question, I disagree that the meaning of randomness is the main issue here. Optimizing the computational efficiency of the test, given the sequences it rejects, is not a very subjective question. I imagine at least some thought was given to this in designing the tests, and I'd like to know more about it | |
| Sep 2, 2010 at 19:04 | answer | added | Thierry Zell | timeline score: 5 | |
| Sep 2, 2010 at 18:44 | comment | added | Helge | I think the big issue is the meaning of randomness here. Give a precise meaning to it, then you get a good test. The problem with the Kolmogorov complexity, you mention, is that it is a complicated thing to compute. Playing poker is soooo much easier. | |
| Sep 2, 2010 at 18:39 | answer | added | Yaroslav Bulatov | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 2, 2010 at 17:53 | history | asked | Jason Orendorff | CC BY-SA 2.5 |