🚀 go-pugleaf

I am not a statistician, however, I don't think my posting
re: random vs. "pseudo-random" was at odds with the posting by
hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu. who replied:

 >If there is a computable algorithm producing the sequence, it is NOT   
 >random.  This algorithm could even have inputs of preceding physical   
 >variables.  The test that the sequence is produced by the algorithm    
 >is the proof that the sequence is NOT random.  

  A "Pseudo-random" sequence is UNDERSTOOD by us to be non-random because 
 we KNOW an algorithm  which can produce it.  However, we often use 
 pseudo-random sequences in simulations and we justify this on the basis 
 of computable attributes of the sequence with which we quantify a
 comparison of the "pseudo-random" sequence (generated by us by
 algorithmic iteration over "n") with a "random" sequence (of events over
 time, "t").  Whether an actual physical process
 is "deterministic" or "non-deterministic", "algorithmic", or "non-algorithmic"
 is not only a question of its "nature" , but also of our understanding.