# Talk:A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates

A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
 September 16, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Statistics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page or join the discussion.

C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

## Contents

Damnit, I accidently blanked the page. Does anyone have a backup copy? Edit: thanks Malo -SB

I thought this article was longer. It used to mention the copyright arguemnet, didn't it? TaylorSAllen 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems a shame not to mention the enthusiastic and creative reviews this book has attracted on Amazon... --144.53.251.2 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Done--Shirt58 (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

## Fooling the IRS

I once heard that the IRS has an algorithm that catches tax cheats that just make up numbers off the top of their head when filling out tax forms. People tend to use the same numbers or combination of numbers apparently. I wonder if any one has ever used a random number generator or this book and just moved the decimal point to a suitable order of magnitude! I wonder if they can detect uncommon randomness too... whats the average entropy of the average Americans economic life? 75.170.64.238 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually doing this would likely alert the IRS. There have been studies which show that incomes follow Pareto distribution, basically a power rule xa, a<0. The consequence of this is that its more likely for an income to start with the digit 1 than any other. If you were to take values straight out of the book you would end up too many values start with 9 which would be suspicious. Too much randomness is actually as likely as not enough.--Salix (talk): 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
More likely to be something similar to Benford's law --Rumping (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

## Checking the Digits

From memory, the introduction included something along the lines of : "A sample of pages has been fully proof-read, without error; the rest have just been looked at. One layout error was seen. It has been estimated that, of the possible electro-mechanical errors, about half would affect the value of a digit and about half would affect the layout. Therefore, of the one million random digits, probably one is incorrect." That seems worth including in the article, but as a direct quote of the original. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)