= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
bogdanb comments on The Weighted Majority Algorithm - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (94)
That’s not at all my domain of expertise, so I’ll take your word for it (though I guessed as much).
That said, I meant that as half funny anecdote, half “it’s not just theory, it’s real life, and you can get screwed hard by something that guesses your decision algorithm, even if it’s just a non-sentient function”, not as an argument for/against either MC or quantum noise. (Though, now that I think of it, these days there probably are quantum noise generators available somewhere.)
AFAIK, there are but they're way too slow for use in MC, so decent-but-fast PRNGs are still preferred.
Also, sometimes you need to run several tests with the same random sequence for debugging purposes, which with true random numbers would require you to store all of them, whereas with pseudo-random numbers you just need to use the same seed.