well they shouldit's not like it's a difficult one to remember, i can justifiably say that this:
is random within the bounds 1<x<100
(19 93 26 18 44
100 47 91 58 56
99 39 92 36 53
97 99 32 47 9
31 1 74 29 96
75 34 52 8 90
83 51 32 37 29
32 74 98 72 80
76 17 40 73 58
47 92 73 90 99
64 64 47 89 73
23 4 42 91 15
8 8 28 76 26
24 88 12 87 18
93 32 59 86 71
9 18 44 76 20
19 8 50 54 3
52 74 66 24 13
83 11 70 2 57
94 66 67 82 100
is random within the bounds 1<x<100
lemony,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 19:50,
archived)
I can see a pattern there
djrich - Live from Houghton Regis got this thing for Clémence Poésy,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 19:54,
archived)
i mean as a sequence of numbersnot in terms of formatting :P
( lemony,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 19:55,
archived)
There is no such thing as a series of random number generated by a computer100% fact
(,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 20:08,
archived)
that's why i didn't use one generated by a computerit is calculated from atmospheric background radiation
( lemony,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 20:11,
archived)
InterestingMy maths formula book (for A-level) has a table of random numbers. Always puts a smile on my face.
(,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 20:15,
archived)
Depends what you mean by computer,A finite state machine can't create a random number, but a modern computer often has non-deterministic devices attached to it such as the sound card which can generate random values.
(
JimM,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 20:24,
archived)
No - actually is isnt.If it was truly random within the bounds of 1
(
newg rum n coke,
Mon 19 Apr 2004, 21:41,
archived)