Related
I have an RKF7(8) integrator whose output I've verified with several simple test functions. However, when I use it on the equation of motion I'm interested in, the local truncation errors are suddenly very small. For a timestep of around 1e-1, my errors are all around 1e-18 or 1e-19. For the simple test functions (so far, sine and an exponential), the errors are always reasonable, ie 1e-7 or so for the same timestep.
The only difference between the simple test functions and the problem function is that it's a huge chunk of code, like maybe 1000 different terms, some with relatively large exponents (like 9 or 10). Could that possibly affect the precision? Should I change my code to use long doubles?
Very interesting question. The problem you are facing might be related to issues (or limitations) of the floating point arithmetic. Since your function contains coefficients in a wide numerical interval, it is likely that you have some loss of precision in your calculations. In general, these problems can come in the form of:
Overflow
Underflow
Multiplication and division
Adding numbers of very different magnitudes
Subtracting numbers of similar magnitudes
Overflow and underflow occur when the numbers you are dealing with are too large or too small with respect to the machine precision, and it would be my bet that this is not what happens in your system. Nevertheless, one must take into account that multiplication and division operations can lead to overflow and underflow. On the other hand, adding numbers of very different magnitudes (or subtracting numbers of similar magnitudes) can lead to severe loss of precision due to the roundoff errors. From my experience in optimization problems that involve large and small numbers, I would say this could be a reasonable explanation of the behavior of your integrator.
I have two suggestions for you. The fist one is of course increasing the precision of your numbers to the maximum available. This might help or not depending on how ill conditioned your problem is. The second one is to use a better algorithm to perform the sums in your numerical method. In contrast to the naive addition of all number sequentially, you could use a more elaborated strategy by dividing your sums into sub-sums, effectively reducing roundoff errors. Notable examples of these algorithms are the pairwise summation and the Kahan summation.
I hope this answer offers you some clues. Good luck!
How is exactly that we talk about "true random" numbers when we are actually measuring something. I mean, isn't measuring almost the opposite of randomness.
Som articles says that, for example, throwing a dice is "true random". Of course it isn't Pseudo-random, but is it even random?? If you could have a machine that throw dices from de exactly same position and always in the same direction with the exact same force always: woudn't it always turn out the same number? (I thing it does).
Please, can someone help me understand "true random" numbers??
Randomness is essentially a measure of how much we don't know. The universe may or may not be truly deterministic, it doesn't matter - we don't know (and have no foreseeable way of knowing) what the exact time between 2 cosmic ray impacts will be. For pseudorandom numbers, we do, in principle, have a way of knowing, because we can recreate the initial conditions and get the same output again.
Quantum effects are the source of this "True Randomness". E.g. the Heisenberg Uncertanity Principle says that your dice thrower can't exactly define both impulse and location of its throwing arm. (Reading up on pop-sci quantum physics can be scary - the predictability and stability of our world seems to be no more than a great feat of statistics.)
[edit] Since it came up in the comments: There are other, less "obscure" processes "looking random", e.g. wear and air turbulence for a die roll. However, all these things could be argued to be beyond our knowledge but fundamentally deterministic (assuming an objective reality.) Quantum processes are truly random at least under the widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation. [/edit]
There are - as mentioned in other replies - appliances that turn quantum effects into observable random number generators. There are algorithms to "extract" the randomness of any stream of data. There are test algorithms to check if a stream of data "behaves" like a random stream.
OTOH you can argue rather successfully that "random" is a man-made concept, i.e. something that isn't integral part of the objective world, but our limit of understanding (though the uncertainty principle is considered to be not just an observer effect).
When someone asks for any random number generator, the counter question should be: for what application? In the context of this discussion: who do you need to fool? Pseudo vs. True are just generation mechanisms, not fundamental opposites.
In that sense, chaotic beahvior is often "random enough" for most purposes, and can be created with few degrees of freedom already.
I think that when some talks about "true random" numbers in IT this is always from measuring/observing something that is thought to be random in contrast to the pseudo-random algorithms that will always return the very same pattern (given the same starting point or after wrapping around after a certain length). For example, I've heard about devices that measure the electric noise produced by some components like transistors. This is indeed "more" random than a deterministic algorithm.
To increase the "randomness" I know that for example Linux tries to incorporate various external events into its random number generator, for example mouse movements, key presses (AFAIK even duration of key presses), timings from the HD, etc. pp. That is, they try to improve the deterministic algorithm by adding indeterministic sources to it.
For true randomness you'll need to observe physical events. Try this.
True random numbers are those impossible to predict even when you have all the information you can currently collect. For example, the decay of radioactive atoms, wind direction and velocity at different places in the world or even the noise generated by a webcam (this list is in decreasing degrees of impossibility to predict.) There is no guarantee that what's random now will be random a thousand years from now.
Pseudo random numbers are totally possible to predict with the right information, either exploting flaws or knowing the seeds.
To get as close as possible to true random numbers in a computer, you'd need some special hardware.
The crucial difference is that we currently don't know how to predict stuff considered random, but we do currently know how to predict pseudo random numbers.
See this question for all the information you could possibly want about this.
I suppose, theoretically, a precise machine could be built that could skew the results of a die throw. In practice, though, there is always some level of variation that can't be predicted. That's where the randomness comes from. Certainly when a person throws a die, there is so much variation in each throw that the result is "truly random".
Computers can generate "true random" numbers by making use of random phenomena like quantum mechanical effects, or electro-magnetic noise.
On computer (Quartz) you can't generate true random because 2+2 is always 4. Then your random can be only pseudo random better or not better depends on how good this is hashed.
True randomization is a problem when you are working with logic, logic isn't random (at least not if it's working correctly..) That's the reason to why some cryptographic programs ask you to move your mouse in a random pattern since it's hard to reverse engineer you ;)
Anyway, as #DarkDust said, and #mdrg mentioned, you have to rely on physical observations, an example would be to hook up a radition meter and observe when some radioactive materia falls apart. Or measure the wind speed outside. Or measure the noise in some transistor. With some mathematical transformation it's impossible (apart from brute force..) to reverse engineer that random number then.
Randomness is really important for a large set of problem solving techniques in AI, economics, physics etc. The need to impose a probability distribution over a set of possible outcomes drives the need for better and better random number generation.
That said, true randomness is probably a debatable concept. Deterministically speaking it shouldn't happen - a la your dice tossing example. I think this is kind of a sensitive argument for philosophers. In reality we can take 'random' measurement with a geiger counter and some radioactive material. In an ideal setting this gives us a pretty good result made by measurement.
From a human perspective the randomness of our number generators only needs to achieve a certain probability of being random given a priori knowledge of the desired complexity of the outcome the random numbers are going to be required for.
If you think about using Bayes principle given the degree of true randomness measured by some arbitrary notion about how good your random numbers are (In the form of a probability distribution) then you can say something about 'trueness' of man-made random number generation. In fact the 'trueness' will approach zero as the period of a truely random number generator is infinite. This only matters when you get that far but we can't - so 'truely random' is a pretty useless distinction for computer scientists who know how to design a nice pseudo-random (everything is pseudo-random relative to some scale) number generator.
Experiments have shown that coin tossing by a human is not random - it appears that there is roughly a 51% chance that the face upwards when the coin is tossed will show when it lands.
Any physical event that is based on very large numbers is likely to generate true random numbers - examples are white noise or the last few digits of the number of transactions in a day on a major stock market.
Measurement is not the opposite of randomness. Measuring randomness can only be done on very large numbers of the random event, and is statistical in nature. What measuring randomness does is look for patterns in the event at different levels - single events, runs of two events, runs of three events etc. A pseudo random generator will generate patterns, if only the full cycle of the generator, but the better generators show fewer patterns.
From Japan, we are producing modules and PC-boards for True random number generator with the self check function.
I think, you can study what is the true random from our "theory" web pagem since how to check the random number randomness is equal to understanding the true randomness.
Please visit our web site, www.letech-rng.jp, and you can see, we joined Monte-Carlo conference 2010, and presented this theory. And also, you can download our paper at the conference, if you like.
Any number produced by applying classical physics cannot be truly random, because the parameters can be known and outcomes can be influenced by outside interference. The throw of the dice for example is not random. However, since influencing or determining the result of the throw would be very complicated, most people would call this a "true" random result. For all intents and purposes, it can be considered random. But strictly speaking, it is not truly random. Even the weather is not random. It can (theoretically) be influenced and predicting it is immensely complicated. In theory, you can know all parameters that influence it. In practice, you can't, but that's not good enough for true randomness, where actual theoretical impossibility of prediction or influence is a must.
The only true source of randomness, where the result is not predictable even when all involved parameters are known and outside interference cannot influence the result in any predictable manner, is the observation of certain quantum events. It has been mathematically proven that quantum behavior is unpredictable. Radioactive decay, for example. Random number generators based on radioactive decay do actually exist. An easier source of true randomness is the observation of photons reflecting off of a semi-transparent mirror. Such RNGs also exist. A search for "quantum random number generators" should give some quite interesting reads.
I have created a random pad using microphone audio input of the room noise combined with a pseudorandom. This is the only possible way I could think of (adding some kind of an analog, unpredicted, signal) to create true randomness.
I just recently came across the Kahan (or compensated) summation algorithm for minimizing roundoff, and I'd like to know if there are equivalent algorithms for division and/or multiplication, as well as subtraction (if there happens to be one, I know about associativity). Implementation examples in any language, pseudo-code or links would be great!
Thanks
Subtraction is usually handled via the Kahan method.
For multiplication, there are algorithms to convert a product of two floating-point numbers into a sum of two floating-point numbers without rounding, at which point you can use Kahan summation or some other method, depending on what you need to do next with the product.
If you have FMA (fused multiply-add) available, this can easily be accomplished as follows:
p = a*b;
r = fma(a,b,-p);
After these two operations, if no overflow or underflow occurs, p + r is exactly equal to a * b without rounding. This can also be accomplished without FMA, but it is rather more difficult. If you're interested in these algorithms, you might start by downloading the crlibm documentation, which details several of them.
Division... well, division is best avoided. Division is slow, and compensated division is even slower. You can do it, but it's brutally hard without FMA, and non-trivial with it. Better to design your algorithms to avoid it as much as possible.
Note that all of this becomes a losing battle pretty quickly. There's a very narrow band of situations where these tricks are beneficial--for anything more complicated, it's much better to just use a wider-precision floating point library like mpfr. Unless you're an expert in the field (or want to become one), it's usually best to just learn to use such a library.
Designing algorithms to be numerically stable is an academic discipline and field of research in its own right. It's not something you can do (or learn) meaningfully via "cheat sheets" - it requires specific mathematical knowledge and needs to be done for each specific algorithm. If you want to learn how to do this, the reference in the Wikipedia article sounds pretty good: Nicholas J. Higham, Accuracy and Stability of Numerical Algorithms, Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 1996. ISBN 0-89871-355-2.
A relatively simple way to diagnose the stability of an algorithm is to use interval arithmetic.
You could use bignums and rational fractions rather than floating point numbers in which case you are limited only by the finite availability of memory to hold the require precision.
I read in an article somewhere that trig calculations are generally expensive. Is this true? And if so, that's why they use trig-lookup tables right?
EDIT: Hmm, so if the only thing that changes is the degrees (accurate to 1 degree), would a look up table with 360 entries (for every angle) be faster?
Expensive is a relative term.
The mathematical operations that will perform fastest are those that can be performed directly by your processor. Certainly integer add and subtract will be among them. Depending upon the processor, there may be multiplication and division as well. Sometimes the processor (or a co-processor) can handle floating point operations natively.
More complicated things (e.g. square root) requires a series of these low-level calculations to be performed. These things are usually accomplished using math libraries (written on top of the native operations your processor can perform).
All of this happens very very fast these days, so "expensive" depends on how much of it you need to do, and how quickly you need it to happen.
If you're writing real-time 3D rendering software, then you may need to use lots of clever math tricks and shortcuts to squeeze every bit of speed out of your environment.
If you're working on typical business applications, odds are that the mathematical calculations you're doing won't contribute significantly to the overall performance of your system.
On the Intel x86 processor, floating point addition or subtraction requires 6 clock cycles, multiplication requires 8 clock cycles, and division 30-44 clock cycles. But cosine requires between 180 and 280 clock cycles.
It's still very fast, since the x86 does these things in hardware, but it's much slower than the more basic math functions.
Since sin(), cos() and tan() are mathematical functions which are calculated by summing a series developers will sometimes use lookup tables to avoid the expensive calculation.
The tradeoff is in accuracy and memory. The greater the need for accuracy, the greater the amount of memory required for the lookup table.
Take a look at the following table accurate to 1 degree.
http://www.analyzemath.com/trigonometry/trig_1.gif
While the quick answer is that they are more expensive than the primitive math functions (addition/multiplication/subtraction etc...) they are not -expensive- in terms of human time. Typically the reason people optimize them with look-up tables and approximations is because they are calling them potentially tens of thousands of times per second and every microsecond could be valuable.
If you're writing a program and just need to call it a couple times a second the built-in functions are fast enough by far.
I would recommend writing a test program and timing them for yourself. Yes, they're slow compared to plus and minus, but they're still single processor instructions. It's unlikely to be an issue unless you're doing a very tight loop with millions of iterations.
Yes, (relative to other mathematical operations multiply, divide): if you're doing something realtime (matrix ops, video games, whatever), you can knock off lots of cycles by moving your trig calculations out of your inner loop.
If you're not doing something realtime, then no, they're not expensive (relative to operations such as reading a bunch of data from disk, generating a webpage, etc.). Trig ops are hopefully done in hardware by your CPU (which can do billions of floating point operations per second).
If you always know the angles you are computing, you can store them in a variable instead of calculating them every time. This also applies within your method/function call where your angle is not going to change. You can be smart by using some formulas (calculating sin(theta) from sin(theta/2), knowing how often the values repeat - sin(theta + 2*pi*n) = sin(theta)) and reducing computation. See this wikipedia article
yes it is. trig functions are computed by summing up a series. So in general terms, it would be a lot more costly then a simple mathematical operation. same goes for sqrt
What is the best algorithm to take a long sequence of integers (say 100,000 of them) and return a measurement of how random the sequence is?
The function should return a single result, say 0 if the sequence is not all all random, up to, say 1 if perfectly random. It can give something in-between if the sequence is somewhat random, e.g. 0.95 might be a reasonably random sequence, whereas 0.50 might have some non-random parts and some random parts.
If I were to pass the first 100,000 digits of Pi to the function, it should give a number very close to 1. If I passed the sequence 1, 2, ... 100,000 to it, it should return 0.
This way I can easily take 30 sequences of numbers, identify how random each one is, and return information about their relative randomness.
Is there such an animal?
…..
Update 24-Sep-2019: Google may have just ushered in an era of quantum supremacy says:
"Google’s quantum computer was reportedly able to solve a calculation — proving the randomness of numbers produced by a random number generator — in 3 minutes and 20 seconds that would take the world’s fastest traditional supercomputer, Summit, around 10,000 years. This effectively means that the calculation cannot be performed by a traditional computer, making Google the first to demonstrate quantum supremacy."
So obviously there is an algorithm to "prove" randomness. Does anyone know what it is? Could this algorithm also provide a measure of randomness?
Your question answers itself. "If I were to pass the first 100,000 digits of Pi to the function, it should give a number very close to 1", except the digits of Pi are not random numbers so if your algorithm does not recognise a very specific sequence as being non-random then it's not very good.
The problem here is there are many types of non random-ness:-
eg. "121,351,991,7898651,12398469018461" or "33,27,99,3000,63,231" or even "14297141600464,14344872783104,819534228736,3490442496" are definitely not random.
I think what you need to do is identify the aspects of randomness that are important to you-
distribution, distribution of digits, lack of common factors, the expected number of primes, Fibonacci and other "special" numbers etc. etc.
PS. The Quick and Dirty (and very effective) test of randomness does the file end up roughly the same size after you gzip it.
It can be done this way:
CAcert Research Lab does a Random Number Generator Analysis.
Their results page evaluates each random sequence using 7 tests (Entropy, Birthday Spacing, Matrix Ranks, 6x8 Matrix Ranks, Minimum Distance, Random Spheres, and the Squeeze). Each test result is then color coded as one of "No Problems", "Potentially deterministic" and "Not Random".
So a function can be written that accepts a random sequence and does the 7 tests.
If any of the 7 tests are "Not Random" then the function returns a 0. If all of the 7 tests are "No Problems", then it returns a 1. Otherwise, it can return some number in-between based on how many tests come in as "Potentially Deterministic".
The only thing missing from this solution is the code for the 7 tests.
You could try to zip-compress the sequence. The better you succeed the less random the sequence is.
Thus, heuristic randomness = length of zip-code/length of original sequence
As others have pointed out, you can't directly calculate how random a sequence is but there are several statistical tests that you could use to increase your confidence that a sequence is or isn't random.
The DIEHARD suite is the de facto standard for this kind of testing but it neither returns a single value nor is it simple.
ENT - A Pseudorandom Number Sequence Test Program, is a simpler alternative that combines 5 different tests. The website explains how each of these tests works.
If you really need just a single value, you could pick one of the 5 ENT tests and use that. The Chi-Squared test would probably be the best to use, but that might not meet the definition of simple.
Bear in mind that a single test is not as good as running several different tests on the same sequence. Depending on which test you choose, it should be good enough to flag up obviously suspicious sequences as being non-random, but might not fail for sequences that superficially appear random but actually exhibit some pattern.
You can treat you 100.000 outputs as possible outcomes of a random variable and calculate associated entropy of it. It will give you a measure of uncertainty. (Following image is from wikipedia and you can find more information on Entropy there.) Simply:
You just need to calculate the frequencies of each number in the sequence. That will give you p(xi) (e.g. If 10 appears 27 times p(10) = 27/L where L is 100.000 for your case.) This should give you the measure of entropy.
Although it will not give you a number between 0 to 1. Still 0 will be minimal uncertainty. However the upper bound will not be 1. You need to normalize the output to achieve that.
What you seek doesn't exist, at least not how you're describing it now.
The basic issue is this:
If it's random then it will pass tests for randomness; but the converse doesn't hold -- there's no test that can verify randomness.
For example, one could have very strong correlations between elements far apart and one would generally have to test explicitly for this. Or one could have a flat distribution but generated in a very non-random way. Etc, etc.
In the end, you need to decide on what aspects of randomness are important to you, and test for these (as James Anderson describes in his answer). I'm sure if you think of any that aren't obvious how to test for, people here will help.
Btw, I usually approach this problem from the other side: I'm given some set of data that looks for all I can see to be completely random, but I need to determine whether there's a pattern somewhere. Very non-obvious, in general.
"How random is this sequence?" is a tough question because fundamentally you're interested in how the sequence was generated. As others have said it's entirely possible to generate sequences that appear random, but don't come from sources that we'd consider random (e.g. digits of pi).
Most randomness tests seek to answer a slightly different questions, which is: "Is this sequence anomalous with respect to a given model?". If you're model is rolling ten sided dice, then it's pretty easy to quantify how likely a sequence is generated from that model, and the digits of pi would not look anomalous. But if your model is "Can this sequence be easily generated from an algorithm?" it becomes much more difficult.
I want to emphasize here that the word "random" means not only identically distributed, but also independent of everything else (including independent of any other choice).
There are numerous "randomness tests" available, including tests that estimate p-values from running various statistical probes, as well as tests that estimate min-entropy, which is roughly a minimum "compressibility" level of a bit sequence and the most relevant entropy measure for "secure random number generators". There are also various "randomness extractors", such as the von Neumann and Peres extractors, that could give you an idea on how much "randomness" you can extract from a bit sequence. However, all these tests and methods can only be more reliable on the first part of this definition of randomness ("identically distributed") than on the second part ("independent").
In general, there is no algorithm that can tell, from a sequence of numbers alone, whether the process generated them in an independent and identically distributed way, without knowledge on what that process is. Thus, for example, although you can tell that a given sequence of bits has more zeros than ones, you can't tell whether those bits—
Were truly generated independently of any other choice, or
form part of an extremely long periodic sequence that is only "locally random", or
were simply reused from another process, or
were produced in some other way,
...without more information on the process. As one important example, the process of a person choosing a password is rarely "random" in this sense since passwords tend to contain familiar words or names, among other reasons.
Also I should discuss the article added to your question in 2019. That article dealt with the task of sampling from the distribution of bit strings generated by pseudorandom quantum circuits, and doing so with a low rate of error (a task specifically designed to be exponentially easier for quantum computers than for classical computers), rather than the task of "verifying" whether a particular sequence of bits (taken out of its context) was generated "at random" in the sense given in this answer. There is an explanation on what exactly this "task" is in a July 2020 paper.
In Computer Vision when analysing textures, the problem of trying to gauge the randomness of a texture comes up, in order to segment it. This is exactly the same as your question, because you are trying to determine the randomness of a sequence of bytes/integers/floats. The best discussion I could find of image entropy is http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=274518 .
Basically, its the statistical measure of randomness for a sequence of values.
I would also try autocorrelation of the sequence with itself. In the autocorrelation result, if there is no peaks other than the first value that means there is no periodicity to your input.
I would use Claude Shannon’s Information Entropy algorithm. You can find the calculation on Youtube easily. I guess it really depends upon why you want this to be measured, and what type of reporting you want to do with the data points you collect.
#JohnFx "... mathematically impossible."
poster states: take a long sequence of integers ...
Thus, just as limits are used in The Calculus, we can take the value as being the value - the study of Chaotics shows us finite limits may 'turn on themselves' producing tensor fields that provide the illusion of absolute(s), and which can be run as long as there is time and energy. Due to the curvature of space-time, there is no perfection - hence the op's "... say 1 if perfectly random." is a misnomer.
{ noted: ample observations on that have been provided - spare me }
According to your position, given two byte[] of a few k, each randomized independently - op could not obtain "a measurement of how random the sequence is" The article at Wiki is informative, and makes definite strides dis-entagling the matter, but
In comparison to classical physics, quantum physics predicts that the properties of a quantum mechanical system depend on the measurement context, i.e. whether or not other system measurements are carried out.
A team of physicists from Innsbruck,
Austria, led by Christian Roos and
Rainer Blatt, have for the first time
proven in a comprehensive experiment
that it is not possible to explain
quantum phenomena in non-contextual
terms.
Source: Science Daily
Let us consider non-random lizard movements. The source of the stimulus that initiates complex movements in the shed tails of leopard geckos, under your original, corrected hyper-thesis, can never be known. We, the experienced computer scientists, suffer the innocent challenge posed by newbies knowing too well that there - in the context of an un-tainted and pristine mind - are them gems and germinators of feed-forward thinking.
If the thought-field of the original lizard produces a tensor-field ( deal with it folks, this is front-line research in sub-linear physics ) then we could have "the best algorithm to take a long sequence" of civilizations spanning from the Toba Event to present through a Chaotic Inversion". Consider the question whether such a thought-field produced by the lizard, taken independently, is a spooky or knowable.
"Direct observation of Hardy's paradox
by joint weak measurement with an
entangled photon pair," authored by
Kazuhiro Yokota, Takashi Yamamoto,
Masato Koashi and Nobuyuki Imoto from
the Graduate School of Engineering
Science at Osaka University and the
CREST Photonic Quantum Information
Project in Kawaguchi City
Source: Science Daily
( considering the spooky / knowable dichotomy )
I know from my own experiments that direct observation weakens the absoluteness of perceptible tensors, distinguishing between thought and perceptible tensors is impossible using only single focus techniques because the perceptible tensor is not the original thought. A fundamental consequence of quantaeus is that only weak states of perceptible tensors can be reliably distinguished from one another without causing a collapse into a unified perceptible tensor. Try it sometime - work on the mainifestation of some desired eventuality, using pure thought. Because an idea has no time or space, it is therefore in-finite. ( not-finite ) and therefore can attain "perfection" - i.e. absoluteness. Just for a hint, start with the weather as that is the easiest thing to influence ( as least as far as is currently known ) then move as soon as can be done to doing a join from the sleep-state to the waking-state with virtually no interruption of sequential chaining.
There is an almost unavoidable blip there when the body wakes up but it is just like when the doorbell rings, speaking of which brings an interesting area of statistical research to funding availability: How many thoughts can one maintain synchronously? I find that duality is the practical working limit, at triune it either breaks on the next thought or doesn't last very long.
Perhaps the work of Yokota et al could reveal the source of spurious net traffic...maybe it's ghosts.
As per Knuth, make sure you test the low-order bits for randomness, since many algorithms exhibit terrible randomness in the lowest bits.
Although this question is old, it does not seem "solved", so here is my 2 cents, showing that it is still an important problem that can be discussed in simple terms.
Consider password security.
The question was about "long" number sequences, "say 100.000", but does not state what is the criterium for "long". For passwords, 8 characters might be considered long. If those 8 chars were "random", it might be considered a good password, but if it can be easily guessed, a useless password.
Common password rules are to mix upper case, numbers and special characters. But the commonly used "Password1" is still a bad password. (okay, 9-char example, sorry) So how many of the methods of the other answers you apply, you should also check if the password occurs in several dictionaries, including sets of leaked passwords.
But even then, just imagine the rise of a new Hollywood star. This may lead to a new famous name that will be given to newborns, and may become popular as a password, that is not yet in the dictionaries.
If I am correctly informed, it is pretty much impossible to automatically verify that a password selected by a human is random and not derived with an easy to guess algorithm. And also that a good password system should work with computer-generated random passwords.
The conclusion is that there is no method to verify if an 8-char password is random, let alone a good and simple method. And if you cannot verify 8 characters, why would it be easier to verify 100.000 numbers?
The password example is just one example of how important this question of randomness is; think also about encryption. Randomness is the holy grail of security.
Measuring randomness? In order to do so, you should fully understand its meaning. The problem is, if you search the internet you will reach the conclusion that there is a nonconformity concept of randomness. For some people it's one thing, for others it's something else. You'll even find some definitions given through a philosophical perspective. One of the most frequent misleading concepts is to test if "it's random or not random". Randomness is not a "yes" or a "no", it could be anything in between. Although it is possible to measure and quantify "randomness", its concept should remain relative regarding its classification and categorization. So, to say that something is random or not random in an absolute way would be wrong because it's relative and even subjective for that matter. Accordingly, it is also subjective and relative to say that something follows a pattern or doesn't because, what's a pattern? In order to measure randomness, you have to start off by understanding it's mathematical theoretical premise. The premise behind randomness is easy to understand and accept. If all possible outcomes/elements in your sample space have the EXACT same probability of happening than randomness is achieved to it's fullest extent. It's that simple. What is more difficult to understand is linking this concept/premise to a certain sequence/set or a distribution of outcomes of events in order to determine a degree of randomness. You could divide your sample into sets or subsets and they could prove to be relatively random. The problem is that even if they prove to be random by themselves, it could be proven that the sample is not that random if analyzed as a whole. So, in order to analyze the degree of randomness, you should consider the sample as a whole and not subdivided. Conducting several tests to prove randomness will necessarily lead to subjectiveness and redundancy. There are no 7 tests or 5 tests, there is only one. And that test follows the already mentioned premise and thus determines the degree of randomness based on the outcome distribution type or in other words, the outcome frequency distribution type of a given sample. The specific sequence of a sample is not relevant. A specific sequence would only be relevant if you decide to divide your sample into subsets, which you shouldn't, as I already explained. If you consider the variable p(possible outcomes/elements in sample space) and n(number of trials/events/experiments) you will have a number of total possible sequences of (p^n) or (p to the power of n). If we consider the already mentioned premise to be true, any of these possible sequences have the exact same probability of occurring. Because of this, any specific sequence would be inconclusive in order to calculate the "randomness" of a sample. What is essential is to calculate the probability of the outcome distribution type of a sample of happening. In order to do so, we would have to calculate all the sequences that are associated with the outcome distribution type of a sample. So if you consider s=(number of all possible sequences that lead to a outcome distribution type), then s/(p^n) would give you a value between 0 and 1 which should be interpreted as being a measurement of randomness for a specific sample. Being that 1 is 100% random and 0 is 0% random. It should be said that you will never get a 1 or a 0 because even if a sample represents the MOST likely random outcome distribution type it could never be proven as being 100%. And if a sample represents the LEAST likely random outcome distribution type it could never be proven as being 0%. This happens because since there are several possible outcome distribution types, no single one of them can represent being 100% or 0% random. In order to determine the value of variable (s), you should use the same logic used in multinominal distribution probabilities. This method applies to any number of possible outcomes/elements in sample space and to any number of experiments/trials/events. Notice that, the bigger your sample is, the more are the possible outcome frequency distribution types, and the less is the degree of randomness that can be proven by each one of them.
Calculating [s/(n^t)]*100 will give you the probability of the outcome frequency dirtibution type of a set occuring if the source is truly random. The higher the probability the more random your set is. To actually obtain a value of randomness you would have to divide [s/(n^t)] by the highest value [s/(n^t)] of all possible outcome frequency distibution types and multiply by 100.