3 ms·

If you follow that assertion, a great number of mathematical concepts become meaningless, e.g. probability distribution. That assertion is even at odds with th

If you follow that assertion, a great number of mathematical concepts become meaningless, e.g. probability distribution. That assertion is even at odds with the second and third sentences of the article you linked. > A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

candiodari 9y ago
It's funny how this thread shows the exact problem identified in the article : a LOT of people have some basic idea of how to answer the question, and come up with strong opinions they "know" are right, and arguing with others. Fact of the matter is that the question is too general, and there are no real answers to it that aren't extremely general themselves. (One mistake in your response would be that obviously random numbers are taken from a particular distribution, and of course there is some information there about what to expect the next random number to be. Taken to an extreme you can take random numbers from the collection {1}. Can you predict what the next random number will be ? I think I can ... Too general questions means you have to take trivial cases into account) I wonder how many of the posters into this thread would reject candidates based on the candidates strongly disagreeing with their statements. Especially because I've got a degree in statistics and I would agree with that this question can't be answered.

candiodari 9y ago

It's funny how this thread shows the exact problem identified in the article : a LOT of people have some basic idea of how to answer the question, and come up with strong opinions they "know" are right, and arguing with others. Fact of the matter is that the question is too general, and there are no real answers to it that aren't extremely general themselves. (One mistake in your response would be that obviously random numbers are taken from a particular distribution, and of course there is some information there about what to expect the next random number to be. Taken to an extreme you can take random numbers from the collection {1}. Can you predict what the next random number will be ? I think I can ... Too general questions means you have to take trivial cases into account) I wonder how many of the posters into this thread would reject candidates based on the candidates strongly disagreeing with their statements. Especially because I've got a degree in statistics and I would agree with that this question can't be answered.