The two in the title of this post is coincidental to the process by which the Universal Library Algorithm (ULA) knows which character it is going to use next; randomness perhaps not so random after all?

The iterative process of the ULA is simply to choose the next character randomly, place it and move on to the next character. For that, the algorithm utilizes multiple random number generators (RNG), and that one chosen then tells the ULA the next character to write (in short, however, there are other processes to assign that number to specific character).  Why multiple? It is difficult for software to duplicate what is considered true randomness. Some techniques that attempt to duplicate that in the world involve advanced coding, hardware and even some natural object (atomic decay, for example). To ensure that the ULA can be as random as possible, it can access several random number generators for each character. The ULA uses a random number generator to determine which other RNG it will ask next, then that RNG provides not just one random number but also another, separate random number that when added to the next iteration, builds a value not predicted by bias computing. Or at least that's the hope.

Is it random? In a Universal Library that would contain every possible placement of character, resulting in more books (see prior post about that term) than there are atoms in the universe (or so say some scientists), perhaps random is very much like infinite - inconsequential terms that provide nothing useful to factual information of the library. For example, if we say that the library is infinite, then in a library of infinite size (which it isn't), no matter where you stand, you'd be in the center of it. What use can you find in that statement when trying to discover facts of the library architecture?

Random is another of those inconsequential terms. Or is it?  

Quite Literally Yours,

The Librarian

Comment