Sarad writes:

If you remember D.E Knuth's book on Semi-Numerical Algorithms he shows some annoying subsequences of pi in it which are far from random.

I don't have Knuth's book handy to look at, but it's not really correct to speak of a particular sequence or subsequence of digits as being random or non-random. For example, is this sequence of bits random: 01100100010? How about this one: 0000000000? From a true random number generator, both are completely possible and equally valid. (Furthermore, I would contend that the digits of pi are *non-random* by definition.)

--- cypherpunk <cyphrpunk@gmail.com> wrote:

...

This doesn't really make sense. Either the digits are random or they are not. You can't be a little bit random. Well, you can be, but the point is that you either pass the test or you don't. [snip] The bottom line is still that either an RNG passes the tests acceptably or it does not. From what they say (or don't say), pi does pass. It doesn't make sense to say that other RNGs do better.

One can only do statistical analyses of sequences of digits to determine whether they *appear* to have a uniform distribution of individual digits and subsequences. Of course the result of such a test (positive *or* negative) doesn't positively confirm whether a given digit source is truly random. Wikipedia has a good article on randomness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random GH _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/