#### entropy1

Gold Member

- 864

- 51

In my view that would have to be flipping bitsThat definition doesn't work. A trivial counterexample would be the string S' that I get by flipping every bit in a random string S; S' is no less random than S itself (all I'm doing is changing the symbols that represent the string), yet there is a 100% anticorrelation between the two.

__randomly__(flip/no-flip). By flipping

__every__bit you are

__creating__a (anti-)correlation. That would be similar to the correlation an entanglement would yield. The fact that there

*is*a correlation is what sets this kind of 'randomness' apart from the example with two

__independent__sources. If you compare two 'truly' random ('independent') strings, you won't get a correlation in any aligment. The strings from a source like an entanglement experiment that have a correlation

*only*yield a correlation when the strings are aligned absolutely. In any other alignment they are random (p=0.5). It is the correlation that sets correlating bitstrings apart from, in my definition, 'true' random bitstrings.

Entanglement data and artificially generated correlations (like in my code) are identical with respect to my argument. It is just that correlating data is

*in every other alignment. That would be random, were it not that in exactly one alignment they correlate. This differs from*

__random____independent__random sources. It is this difference that sets correlating data apart, in my view.

Correlation is, as it were, a 'hidden payload'.

Last edited: