From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
> Seriously, it seems obvious to me that the agreement suggested above
> between supposed
> random numbers would be sufficient proof that they are not random. Random
> means without
> pattern. If two lists agree, this establishes a pattern. What am I
missing?
> Could you possibly fill in
> some details of Woodmorappe' analysis for those of us who do not have
> access to the book?
He used to a common random number generator used in scientific circles. The
lists of number were generated separately. The agreements were to the same
accuracy to which radiometric dates are commonly found. I loaned the book
to a friend so I don't have it in front of me at the moment. However I
believe that two numbers were considered in agreement if they were within a
percentage of error common with radiometric dating accuracy. For instance,
assuming an accuracy of 0.15% then 256813 +/- 385 is in agreement with
256600 +/- 384.
Not every number in the list agrees. But he found that the first agreement
occurred within the first 20 to 30 number pairs from each list by comparing
pair by pair down the list. Other agreements occurred randomly throughout
the rest of the lists.
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 03 2000 - 01:24:39 EST