If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi in it which are far from random.
I don't have Knuth's book handy to look at, but it's not really correct to speak of a particular sequence or subsequence of digits as being random or non-random. For example, is this sequence of bits random: 01100100010? How about this one: 0000000000? From a true random number generator, both are completely possible and equally valid.
(Furthermore, I would contend that the digits of pi are *non-random* by definition.)
[snip]--- cypherpunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This doesn't really make sense. Either the digits > are random or they > are not. You can't be a little bit random. Well, you > can be, but the > point is that you either pass the test or you don't.
> The bottom line is still that either an RNG passes > the tests > acceptably or it does not. From what they say (or > don't say), pi does > pass. It doesn't make sense to say that other RNGs > do better.
One can only do statistical analyses of sequences of digits to determine whether they *appear* to have a uniform distribution of individual digits and subsequences.
Of course the result of such a test (positive *or* negative) doesn't positively confirm
whether a given digit source is truly random.
Wikipedia has a good article on randomness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random
GH
_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
