Are you sure that's mathematical proof the algorithm is perfectly random, or proof that its reliability is above a certain threshold?Jellby wrote: ↑23 August 2026, 15:08 Actually, with RNG algothims you can prove it's 1/6 (or whatever). You don't need evidence, you have mathematical proof (as long as you trust/assume the computer behaves according to the specifications). With a die, especially with a die you just got in your newly purchased game, there's indeed no evidence it will be 1/6, or even that the rolls are independent.
If there existed an algorithm that creates perfect randomness, why would we have different algorithms and graphs that show the differences between them? There would be only one algorithm and everyone would be using it.
I'm not sure how we would even go about creating true randomness. I mean, you could always create an algorithm that performs a countdown, or a system that looks at the current time and derive a number for that. But then that wouldn't be randomness, it would be predictable for the user. How do we create an algorithm that produces a series of numbers that are truly random seems like a question that remains a mystery. We can do something like go through the decimals of Pi, but there is no way to prove the sequence is random. Maybe we can prove every digit will show up an infinite number of times, but that's not the same as proving the sequence is random.
Randomness is a pretty fundamental aspect of the fairness of many games.
Fairness means the game is proceeding as defined by the rules. If the rules of the game involve randomness, then following that without bias is what constitutes fairness.
People often will complain when they get unlucky and say that's not fair. But that's not true. The randomness is part of the game, so whatever happens is the fair result. To say otherwise would be anti-sportsmanship and not respecting the rules of the game as it was created.
Not fair would be if people tried to control the luck (in a way not allowed by the rules) to try to get the results they think they "deserve".
Now, admittedly, whether a source of randomness follows a perfectly exact distribution is something you may argue is not explicitly stated in the rulebook of most games. When you play a game that uses dice, it's probably not stated that each side must have a 1/6 chance of coming up. The rulebook just says "use the dice that is provided in the box". So it could be argued that the distribution being uniform is a human interpretation that we invent when we play those types of games, not necessarily something that is officially part of the rules.
After all, whether the actual probability for each side is 1/6 or some number very close to it doesn't fundamentally change the game. The outcome is still unpredictable for the players, and no one is intentionally being disadvantaged. You could even argue that if internet functions are not perfectly random, that's less a flaw and more something that authentically recreates the game experience, because in real life the dice are not perfect either.
