Lootman wrote:chas49 wrote:Lootman wrote:Which tells us nothing about any tweaks to the randomness of the draw.
Unless of course you have some kind of inside knowledge.
From the NS&I link given by XFool:
The test of proving that ERNIE’s outputs are robust has long been discussed by experts in the field of randomness.
...
ERNIE has never failed to be anything but random in every test carried out by GAD.
But if that ceased to be true at any point, then how would anyone know? It's not like the code is in the public domain.
Because there is no "code" - in generating the numbers. A fundamental principle of random number generators used for lotteries, such as ERNIE, is that they are physical generators of random numbers, not computer algorithms which are pseudo-random.
Lootman wrote:It is not an open and public process like, say, the national lottery. It is done in secret behind closed doors and so requires faith.
No more "faith" required than with the national lottery. How do you know that isn't "fixed" somehow? The results can be looked at in the same way as with ERNIE. As described above, the government actuary checks the ERNIE generated figures for randomness - that's more than good enough for me, along with its physical nature.
https://www.idquantique.com/random-number-generation/overview/
And before you ask, no, I can't "prove" this company isn't a front for the CIA, Mossad or the Vatican (or all three). Again, to what end? Do you have actual evidence of politicians winning the jackpot or high prizes too frequently?
Lootman wrote:If you are asking whether I trust politicians to maintain the integrity that was clearly intended for ERNIE then I might share that good faith gesture. But I do not see how anyone here can prove the matter either way without a reference to third parties.
Oh well, then nobody can demonstrate or "prove" anything. So what does anything matter?
I guess the Earth could be flat and it's turtles all the way down...
