You faggots will argue about anything

Let's saying you're playing a game where you have to roll a dice, the number of players doesn't matter. A normal 1d6 to determine anything, from movement to combat, but instead of a normal die it uses a digital representation, where instead of using a random number generator it generates a string of numbers 1-6 in a random fashion thousands of digits long, certainly more than enough to last any game and you can never have any way of gaining knowledge about future numbers in the list.
One of the people playing complains that since it's a pre-determined list of numbers it isn't generated for this action but just an integer in a list, while another one says that as it is impossible to know about the upcoming numbers it is functionally the same as rolling a dice each time.
Which one is right?

stopped reading there. 'dice' is the plural

They're both right, but the outcome is pre determined so it's not much of a game.

The first one.

Predetermined numbers aren't random.

You obviously don't know the meaning of the word "random".

OP; the complaint is wrong. There is no difference between the existing numbers and newly generated numbers - because you don't have information about them.

The difference is that they bear results. So while you may not know the end to the movie, it's still scripted.

I'm taking a literal as-is evaluation of their claims, there are 2.

True, it's not generated every single roll, it's just an integer. Randomness would be giving an equal opportunity that any possible outcome could be achievable which is inconsistent with the notion that a computer could generate a long list of numbers and those playing have no opportunity to change their outcome.
YOU WHAT NIGGER? No it's not functionally the same thing. With a physical die/dice, the factors of physics (rotation, velocity, acceleration, speed, angle, weight, dimensions, etc.) of both the die/dice and the person rolling them leads to different opportunities of outcome, therefore random and not the same thing as computer generation. these can also be manipulated by someone skilled in order to achieve their desired result (i.e. rolling a 6 on a single die), whereas a computer generated result does not allow this.

In the case of rolling a die for every action, each of these outcomes has already been determined by the boundary conditions in the universe and the electrochemical states of the players' brains. Thus the list of integers is, indeed, functionally the same as dice rolls, which may as well have been written in starduat in the infancy of existance.

The first player is still correct to complain, as the list of integers reminds him that free will and indeterminate futures are out cruelest lies, and simple games can no longer distract him from his headlong plunge into the inevitable.

Also cocks.

So you're saying the biggest problem is that it lowers human interaction into the result?

Following this train of thought, wouldnt that mean the list of integers is in face a more 'fair and balanced' game of chance since no one but the computer knows the way the numbers will turn up, it for all intents and purposes is random and cannot be affected by things such as the table shaking, hitting terrain\objects, and so forth? Afterall with the list a skilled player cant affect the outcome.

commie detected