Re: normal digits base 10 ( used to be: bimodal ditribution form counting signs of Pi digits differences)

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg52017] Re: normal digits base 10 ( used to be: bimodal ditribution form counting signs of Pi digits differences)*From*: Bill Rowe <readnewsciv at earthlink.net>*Date*: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 01:03:42 -0500 (EST)*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

On 11/6/04 at 2:07 AM, tftn at earthlink.net (Roger Bagula) wrote: >Dear bill Roew, Thanks for your enlightening critical comments. In >the other thread you gave a measurement that I thought was very >good and usefull. If you are refering to the KS statistic, this is just one of many statistics that can be used as a measure of randomness. Or more precisely, to compare a given set of numbers to some specified distribution. >Sign[] used in this way is just easier than doing >a lot with base 10 digits. It may be easier to code, but it will not be easier to interpret the results. In fact, I doubt you will be able to create a valid statistical measure of randomness using Sign the way you have been doing. You simply throw away too much information about the distribution when you do this. >Base 16 may be a better place to start as that is what the Bailey >digits formula is in. Using base 16 will not change the relationships between adjacent digits. It will not fix the problem you create by using Sign to map the digits to {-1,0,1} >I'm just trying to get a "handle" on just what the randomness is like. Then a very good place to start is the text I mentioned by Knuth -- To reply via email subtract one hundred and four