Comment

Comment by antics

When you step back to think about it, a huge amount of CS theory papers rely on this hand-wavy definition of "randomness" to prove something. Oddly, though, if you actually press a CS theory person for a mathematical definition of this concept, they virtually always draw a blank.

As a student I remember thinking that this was incredibly alarming. Without a good understanding of this concept, how can we be sure any of what we're saying is even remotely correct?

What Knuth has given us here is the ideal treatment of the subject, essentially putting the question of what randomness is, to rest for good. He starts by taking a comprehensive, entertaining history of the landscape (in short: researchers ping-ponged between having definitions of randomness so strict that nothing was random, and so loose that they were all pathologically predictable) before finally proving a theorem that completely solves the problem.

It is a monumental accomplishment in the field, and it is quite shocking to me that it's still so obscure. It's one of my favorite results in all of CS, anywhere.

If you haven't had the chance, I highly recommend the rest of this volume (Seminumerical Algorithms). It is just stuffed with other surprising, amazing results.

parent antics 12 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton