Subject: Re: Refutation of Santha-Vazirani random number paper? From: email@example.com (Albert Boulanger) In article <13110@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: No, quantum physics involves "essential" randomness, and QED is the most rigorously tested predictive physical theory we have. If the RNG is based on fundamentally quantum processes (e.g. radioactive decay) and is free of bias, it should be "truly" random. Well, this question of randomness in QM is not necessarily at the axiomatic level of QM: "The axiomatic development [of QM] is deliberately silent concerning any requirements that the measurable functions be non-determinate or that the elements of the probability space correspond to inherently unpredictable or erratic events" - "Randomness in Quantum Mechanics -- Nature's Ultimate Cryptogram?" T. Erber & S. Putterman, Nature, Vol 318, (7 Nov 1985), 41-43 Those of you who know this work may criticize their experimental procedure for detecting pseudo-random signature in isolated ions, but this point is still valid. Probabilistic, random, and non-deterministic mean different things. QM is probabilistic. Yours in inquiry, Albert Boulanger BBN Systems & Technologies Corp.