eli at gs160.sp.cs.cmu.edu
Fri Mar 14 04:22:51 CET 1997
FlavorMaus at aol.com wrote:
> sorry, a machine is incapable of true randomness.
There are any number of ways to define "random", and none is the
"true" one. For musical purposes, the appropriate definition is
psychoacoustic: does the signal have perceptible artifacts?
(If, say, you cut corners on your shift register, it very well may.)
Gold-plated Platonic-ideal random numbers are not at issue here.
eli+ at cs.cmu.edu
[pedantic note for purposes of procrastination:]
A more stringent definition, and the one I find most elegant, is taken
from algorithmic information theory: loosely, can the data be
generated by any program shorter than it? A computer can generate data
that meets even this strong criterion, given an insanely long time.
More information about the Synth-diy