How Truly Random is Random

[deisik]

This thought has been nagging me since I first saw the pic below (taken from here):



The image on the left features a uniform distribution (which many erroneously come to think of as random), while the points on the right image are allegedly distributed randomly (read, it is a random distribution). But if we think about it, we may come to the idea that random is not truly random at a higher level. Really, if you hit some random outcome, you could in fact expect more of such outcomes in close vicinity of that first outcome as the image above clearly reveals. So how truly random is what universally considered random?

I'm starting the thread in the Gambling discussion section because this domain (i.e. gambling) is where the idea of randomness and whether random is truly random have most applications and implications. Yeah, you thought it right, for gambling and our success at it

[NeuroticFish]

It may worth adding that usually in computer science pseudo-random numbers are generated. Truly random (?) values are only to be found in nature. And pseudo-randomness may, strangely(?), be closer to what you expect in statistics.

[deisik]

It may worth adding that usually in computer science pseudo-random numbers are generated. Truly random (?) values are only to be found in nature. And pseudo-randomness may, strangely(?), be closer to what you expect in statistics

This point can be challenged

I'm not very familiar with the gory details of how pseudo-random numbers are generated, but as far as I know, the devices designed for this purpose are using some natural, stochastic processes. In other words, you can't actually say that hardware random number generators are not "natural" (pardon the double negative) as they are what can be found in nature and as random as nature itself goes and does

[NeuroticFish]

In other words, you can't actually say that hardware random number generators are not "natural" (pardon the double negative) as they are what can be found in nature and as random as nature itself goes and does

That's correct. But I expect that all online casinos use software random number generators. Of course, whether the majority uses one or another, may need to be asked/verified.

[seoincorporation]

Random is one side of luck, if you flip a coin 100 times in theory that's random and 50 coins should see the face and the other 50 should see back. But since luck is a fact there is a chance to see 100 faces. But what does it mean? it only means our random universe was too small.

Is the same in computer science, if we chose 3 times random numbers between 1,2 and 3, that doesn't mean we will get the numbers 1,2,3 un different orders. If the universe is small we will not see the numbers as random.

[Wapfika]

This makes me think, if there will be a calculation on how random a randomness can really be. I usually use random in betting. If there is a system who decides random chances to won is not still that big. When I have no time to think of numbers in lotteries I take random and it will give the number easily. It can be like a bot that have tons of prepared generated numbers that will only be use once.

[deisik]

In other words, you can't actually say that hardware random number generators are not "natural" (pardon the double negative) as they are what can be found in nature and as random as nature itself goes and does

That's correct. But I expect that all online casinos use software random number generators. Of course, whether the majority uses one or another, may need to be asked/verified

If I'm not mistaken, WB uses a hardware random number generator

When I was translating for them, I encountered the part which made reference to such a device. But that's not actually my point here, in this topic. I'm not talking about pseudo-random numbers and how genuinely random they are. Even if we look at a really random distribution generated by a truly stochastic process (by however strict measure), we will see patterns as the image above shows

Indeed, these patterns of outcomes are random themselves (to repeat, I don't question their randomness). But the very fact that there are patterns takes a bit from the randomness of these outcomes making them somewhat less random. In this regard, a uniform distribution seems to be more random on this level, which leads us to question the very idea and understanding of what randomness actually is

[panganib999]

You know how every mathematical problem has a solution? It's kinda similar with the choice of randomness. Its like, every random choice, combined with another, and then one more, can possible be solved using a solution. This might result in the randomness, not being random anymore. Plus, the group we actually manipulate with our randomness is finite, which is why it seems that it's not actually random, and there is a thought process to it. Heck, you even think of answering multiple choices with patterns right? But imagine if there were infinite choices, randomizing then and there could truly be called random.

[Hydrogen]

Generating random numbers is a dedicated and specialized branch of computer study all its own.

That said what do people think about RNGs (random number generators) which utilize past weather data as a basis for generating unpredictable and random seeming sequences of numbers? Is it possible to emulate randomness via utilizing a preset generated list of numbers derived from a seemingly randomized source?

Isn't it interesting how subjects taught in school like math, probability and science which on the surface can appear incredibly boring. Suddenly become exciting and interesting when applied to topics like gambling or video games where they can be utilized to effectively analyze and produce results one wouldn't normally expect.

[GSpgh]

Indeed, these patterns of outcomes are random themselves (to repeat, I don't question their randomness). But the very fact that there are patterns takes a bit from the randomness of these outcomes making them somewhat less random. In this regard, a uniform distribution seems to be more random on this level, which leads us to question the very idea and understanding of what randomness actually is

There is more pattern in the uniform distribution picture than in the other one. Think about it. If you wanted to guess the next pixel on that picture you would have a much better chance than with the random one.

We as humans have evolved on pattern recognition, it's our basic survival tool, but we sometimes see them where they don't exist. Our pattern recognition has limitations and your pictures exploit that. Trust math, not your eyes. I don't want to start posting pictures of optical illusions - I think you know what i'm talking about.

[Shimmiry]

Generating random numbers is a dedicated and specialized branch of computer study all its own.

That said what do people think about RNGs (random number generators) which utilize past weather data as a basis for generating unpredictable and random seeming sequences of numbers? Is it possible to emulate randomness via utilizing a preset generated list of numbers derived from a seemingly randomized source?

Isn't it interesting how subjects taught in school like math, probability and science which on the surface can appear incredibly boring. Suddenly become exciting and interesting when applied to topics like gambling or video games where they can be utilized to effectively analyze and produce results one wouldn't normally expect.

Random is a generated numbers depends on the logic and sequence of the amount those numbers get by the computer and not verifying each number. The goal of the random is to give a different set of number, by some cases if the developers set a small amount of value like in gambling there is a high chance of probability to predict what kind of combination will show commonly this happens on card and dice games. If you are good in statistic, numbers, random and probability. You have a higher chance of winning different games related to each topic.

[YuginKadoya]

I think the idea of randomness is everywhere when we shuffle the music from our phone or Ipad when you are getting Gashapon toys or capsule toys we always get a random item, I think some gambling program gets their idea from certain simple things like these and in the image on the left might see random movements but the truth is it is not because they had a path they always correspond on moving so there is no colliding with one another while on the other image the dots collides at one another and specifically there is no organized movement I think that is the key in randomness for certain program on gambling sites, and this I think my conclusion on each image.

[desticy]

Random is a rather specific thing, sometimes even esoteric, but for me this has always been just math.
The main difficulty of a random house is that for its full manifestation a huge number of events is necessary, otherwise there is a giant error that does not allow an adequate analysis of its results.

[Krislaw]

Randomness becomes less fair in some gambling situations like when the winning streak starts getting high, the system starts to favour those with less bet. The probability of you winning a high odd with a little stake is mostly low and vice versa . So, I don't consider most results of every random to fair when it comes to gambling.

[STT]

The only way a computer can be random is by reference to a physical process of some type, they usually utilise some sort of atomic decay factor or something that works long term for the computer to extract in a consistent way.      The probably most relevant history for this topic would be use of computers in lottery type situations where numbers are picked automatically, they have to go to great efforts to avoid any ability for people to reverse engineer a series or sequence to the numbers chosen.
   Normally I see them rotate a number of machines to try and stop any build up of possible bias and the machine used for each lottery pick is changed on the day after closure of all entries so that seals the deal on possible predictability.

[MATHReX]

That's my take on it,
Let's say we run a function which returns a random value where value is an integer and between 1 to 100.
The probability of particular value to come more than once in 100 executions will be high.
In this case, we can say random is not so random because the area to select the randomness is too small.

Now, let's take a case of a x-y graph which is literally infinite in both the axis and we are to execute a function which returns 10 pairs of (x,y) coordinates randomly where x and y are float values.
Then the number of executions it will take to get the identical set to come twice is near to zero.
Here, Random is very very random.

So, it does come down to the vastness that we are playing in to generate randomness.

[Naida_BR]

In my opinion, both pictures depict random dots.
On the left side the possibility of "catching" a dot is evenly distributed while on the right side you might "catch" more dots but you can "catch" nothing as well. I think that the second option is what casinos are using in order to be profitable.

[swogerino]

I think this is a tricky question.I think that slot machine software can be manipulated and not be truly random however provably fair when is implemented like it should moves away this doubt from my head and I believe random is truly random.

Truly random I think is only where the casino house has its cut always provided like in poker when multiple random people are playing.

[Ucy]

My guess is all or most of the factors responsible for the distribution have to be known and understood else it's considered random distribution.
I believe nothing is really random. We humans are limited in our understanding of what creates the so called randomness, so we use the word random.
There are probably unknown reasons why the points at the right are distributed that way. You can easily understand why if you have sufficient understanding of how it's generated

[deisik]

Indeed, these patterns of outcomes are random themselves (to repeat, I don't question their randomness). But the very fact that there are patterns takes a bit from the randomness of these outcomes making them somewhat less random. In this regard, a uniform distribution seems to be more random on this level, which leads us to question the very idea and understanding of what randomness actually is

There is more pattern in the uniform distribution picture than in the other one. Think about it. If you wanted to guess the next pixel on that picture you would have a much better chance than with the random one

Okay, let's think about it, shall we?

You already see both distributions. But let's assume that you don't. That is, you know nothing about the type of the distribution, whether it is random or otherwise. But you know that any random distribution is, well, random, that any pattern you might look for would also be random. However, you also know that with a random distribution you are bound to find some patterns, and this is not "random" specifically because it is a random distribution

So how random is it really? If you see a dot, aren't you more likely to see another dot nearby with such a distribution? But that means things are no longer random to you even if the distribution of dots itself remains totally random. You take advantage of some feature or property of a random distribution that any random distribution has (namely, patterns), and thereby you stop it being random despite it being random. Isn't it a nice paradox or conundrum?