Subject: Re: Refutation of Santha-Vazirani random number paper?
From: (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.