I don't think it would be necessary to know *a priori* that something is unpredi... | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit

nitrogen on Sept 8, 2014 | parent | context | favorite | on: Correlation is usually not causation. But why not?

I don't think it would be necessary to know a priori that something is unpredictable; failing to find a pattern after some number of observations should allow an algorithm to determine that the event is not predictable by that algorithm.

tshaddox on Sept 8, 2014 [–]

The trouble is that you can't reliably distinguish random data (or data determined by factors you're not considering) from patterned data.

thaumasiotes on Sept 8, 2014 | [–]

How do you think random number generators are tested?

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact