silber@sbphy.ucsb.edu (06/01/89)
I am not a statistician, however, I don't think my posting re: random vs. "pseudo-random" was at odds with the posting by hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu. who replied: >If there is a computable algorithm producing the sequence, it is NOT >random. This algorithm could even have inputs of preceding physical >variables. The test that the sequence is produced by the algorithm >is the proof that the sequence is NOT random. A "Pseudo-random" sequence is UNDERSTOOD by us to be non-random because we KNOW an algorithm which can produce it. However, we often use pseudo-random sequences in simulations and we justify this on the basis of computable attributes of the sequence with which we quantify a comparison of the "pseudo-random" sequence (generated by us by algorithmic iteration over "n") with a "random" sequence (of events over time, "t"). Whether an actual physical process is "deterministic" or "non-deterministic", "algorithmic", or "non-algorithmic" is not only a question of its "nature" , but also of our understanding.