Quote from JO53PHS :

Between 0 and 9, seven is

An odd number (more interesting in terms of randomness)
A prime number (as above)
Not at the beginning or end (not random enough)
Not 1 (1 is too boring to be sufficiently random)
Not 5 (5 is too central in a list of numbers to be random)

This leaves only 3 and 7

And everyone knows that 7 is clearly a better random number

Or I could be talking crap

This is exactly what I was thinking. It makes sense, it would also explain these three "peaks" I can see in the poll now. Humans are bad random number generators if they're given a list to pick from as we have to consciously think about what number to pick. As we focus on making the choice "randomly", we're actually making is less random...

7 is the date which I was born, which is why I automatically pick it out of 10.

Quote from tinvek :

no surprise how popular 7 is, read somewhere that it's by far the most popular choice between 0 and 9, there was some scientific reason behind it but i can't remember it as it was about 25 years ago

"Lucky number 7"

Same goes for 13, but some think it brings bad luck so don't choose it.

Ever been to a casino?

On another note, 15 must suck.

10

Quote from amp88 :

Quote from AndRand :

I got nice one for you:
get a number from 0 to 1 as x, calculate 2*x-1, then take result as x and calculate again... and again... and couple of times... and you get random number generator

You don't.

You do.

I forgot ^2 in this formula, it should be iterated k*x^2-1 with k between 1,5 and 2 and satrting x between 0 and 1.
So if you remember last result, the next one would be "random" when algorithm is unknown. Frankly random number algorithms act the same with slighly more complicated formula but it acts the same.

If you want TRULY random generator: take any measurement ie. voltage (best one with amplifier multiplying false measurement) and make iterated formula to get numbers beyond precision of measurement. What you get would be pure random number.

btw. that way you can also transmit information

Quote from AndRand :

You do.

I forgot ^2 in this formula, it should be iterated k*x^2-1 with k between 1,5 and 2 and satrting x between 0 and 1.
So if you remember last result, the next one would be "random" when algorithm is unknown. Frankly random algorithms act the same with slighly more complicated formula but it acts the same.

If you want TRULY random generator: take any measurement ie. voltage (best one with amplifier multiplying false measurement) and make iterated formula to get numbers beyond precision of measurement. What you get would be pure random number.

a) I'm still not sure weather anyone understands what the **** you are on about.

b) You already said it yourself. An algorithm. Algorithms are deterministic and you need nondeterminism to create randomness.

Sorry to say but your knowledge is like from first half of XIX century.

There are many ABSOLUTE DETERMINISTIC algorithms that produce UNDETERMINISTIC results. Weather predictions, swirls, turbulence - all of them produce undeterministic results based on deterministic algorithms. The key is iteration and nonprecise (in terms of ad infinity) measurements of starting state.

Such a situatioin you are familiar with is a computer system. When it is unstable you got to know every state of every registry key and every .ini file line to know how it will behave on rebooot. Scanning all the entries and files takes the same time as rebooting. So, although rebooting is strictly deterministic, results can be chaotic hang up

Probably every straw of grass is more complicated than computer system... but it acts stable even rebooting every second

I hope I'm not in an argument with a mathematician or a physicist... The only mathematical thing in my line would be evolutionary calculation, and even then I'm not having my hopes up - The teachers over at Robot vision and pattern recognition lab openly say that it's "for those who are unable to derive properly."

Anyway all of the above is once again strictly on-topic