Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T07:28:14.734Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On The Correct Definition of Randomness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Paul Benioff
Paul Benioff*
Affiliation:
Argonne National Laboratory
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The concept of randomness as applied to number sequences is important to the study of the relationship between the foundations of mathematics and physics. A reason is that while randomness is often defined in mathematical-logical terms, the only way one has to generate random number sequences is by means of repetitive physical processes. This paper will examine the question: What definition of randomness is correct in the sense of being the weakest allowable? Why this question is so important will become clear during the course of the discussion.

The main body of this paper is divided into three sections. Section 1. discusses the use of probability theory to describe various statistical processes and some of the alternative definitions of randomness that have been proposed.

In Section 2. a criterion which a definition of randomness should satisfy is proposed.

Type
Part III. Physical Randomness
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 62 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The author wishes to thank Professors Paul Humphreys and Geoffrey Hellman for useful and stimulating discussions on the subject matter of this paper.

References

[1] Benioff, Paul A. “Models of Zermelo-Frankel Set Theory as Carriers for the Mathematics of Physics, I.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 17(1976): 618–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] Benioff, Paul A. “Models of Zermelo-Frankel Set Theory as Carriers for the Mathematics of Physics, II.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 17(1976): 629–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Benioff, Paul A. “On Definitions of Validity Applied to Quantum Theories.” Foundations of Physics 3(1973): 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Benioff, Paul A. “Possible Strengthening of the Interpretive Rules of Quantum Mechanics.” Physical Reviews 7D(1973): 3603–3609.Google Scholar
[5] Benioff, Paul A. “Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Mathematical Logic and Physics, II.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 11(1970): 2553–2569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Benioff, Paul A. “Some Aspects of the Relationship Between Mathematical Logic and Physics, II.” Journal of Mathematical Physics 12(1971): 360–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7] Church, Alonzo. “On the Concept of a Random Sequence.” Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 46(1940): 254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Cohen, Paul J. Set Theory and the Continuum Hypothesis. New York: W.A. Benjamin, 1966.Google Scholar
[9] Fine, Terrence. Theories of Probability. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
[10] Kruse, Arthur H. “Some Notions of Random Sequences and Their Set Theoretic Foundations.” Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 13(1967): 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Loveland, D.W. “The Kleene Hierarchy Classification of Recursively Random Sequences.” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 125(1966): 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Loveland, D.W. “A New Interpretation of the von Mises Concept of Random Sequence.” Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 12(1966): 279–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Martin-Löf, Per. “The Definition of Random Sequences.” Information and Control 9(1966): 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Martin-Löf, Per. “On the Notion of Randomness.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Intuitionism and Proof Theory. Edited by Kino, A. Myhill, J., and Vesley, R.E. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1970. Pages 73–78.Google Scholar
[15] Solovay, Robert M. “A Model of Set Theory in Which Every Set of Reals is Lebesgue Measurable.” Annals of Mathematics 92(1970): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Ville, Jean. Étude critique de la notion de collectif. Paris: Gauthiers-Villars, 1939.Google Scholar
[17] Von Mises, Richard. Mathematical Theory of Probability and Statistics, (ed.) Geiringer, Hilda. New York: Academic Press, 1964.Google Scholar
[18] Wald, Abraham. “Die Widerspruchsfreiheit des Kollectivbegriffes.” In Selected Papers in Statistics and Probability. (ed.) Anderson, T.W., et al. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955. Pages 25–45. (Originally published in Actualites Scientifiques et Industrielles. No. 735, Colloque Consacre a la Théorie des Probabilites. Paris: Hermann et Cie, 1938. Pages 79-99.)Google Scholar