# Talk:Random number generation

WikiProject Statistics (Rated Start-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.

Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

## Randomness is an observed entity

The article starts out with: "A random number generator (RNG) is a computational or physical device designed to generate a sequence of numbers or symbols that lack any pattern, i.e. appear random." But it should be the other way around: If an Observer find that a sequence lack any pattern, it appears random to him. Different observers may rate the same sequence differently. The randomness is not in the sequence.

Bo Domstedt http://www.trng98.se

## Poor example MWC1616 should be replaced

https://medium.com/@betable/tifu-by-using-math-random-f1c308c4fd9d#.nj1verf8n claims that this article uses the poor example MWC1616. It would be nice if someone more qualified would check the link and article, and possibly insert a more appropriate example of a PRNG.

If the current example for chosen simplicity and briefness rather than quality, it might be reasonable to instead pick something even simpler like DJB2, which I believe is a lot easier to explain. If instead quality is an important factor, MWC1616 seems to be a poor choice even in the refined variant, according to the link. --mafutrct (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Mafutrct: the stock standard PRNG algorithm is (as the linked article points out) the Mersenne Twister, but if you want something with a very short pseudocode and comparable quality, xorshift is just a few lines. Chrome will apparently use xorshitf128+ to replace MWC1616. --Tgr (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Just as an update: MWC has since been removed from the article. Sadly without a replacement. --mafutrct (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

## Pi?

I've always been led to believe that the digits of pi are truly random. Is this so? If so, worth a mention, I would think, since pi provides . . . how many now, 1 or 2 quadrillion random digits (I don't know what the current total number of known digits of pi is right now)? (Double that since presumably a random sequence is just as random when taken backwards(?)) DoctorFun1970 (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem would be making a random number generator to provide a choice for which number in the digits of pi to use. WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)