Here, a test:
90 64 45 90 32
64 29 56 69 82
27 87 60 37 7
79 49 23 36 16
100 18 70 53 96
11 51 29 24 42
8 56 25 43 39
1 40 73 24 89
33 28 79 8 61
61 56 67 43 73
45 20 25 66 76
66 77 22 64 95
32 96 68 93 27
55 27 82 16 69
53 80 96 33 100
18 32 100 26 42
93 20 61 31 8
79 17 29 20 70
99 75 50 96 50
35 60 4 57 4
100 random numbers, from random org. You tell me.
Silly response: That has three 100s and only a single 1. Clearly not random enough!
Serious answer: This is too small a sample size to be confident it's a very good generator, but we can at least do some simple tests to rule out the possibility that it's a very
bad generator. E.g. Look at the sorted series, then split in two.
[1, 4, 4, 7, 8, 8, 8, 11, 16, 16, 17, 18, 18, 20, 20, 20, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 25, 26, 27, 27, 27, 28, 29, 29, 29, 31, 32, 32, 32, 33, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 42, 43, 43, 45, 45, 49, 50, 50,
51, 53, 53, 55, 56, 56, 56, 57, 60, 60, 61, 61, 61, 64, 64, 64, 66, 66, 67, 68, 69, 69, 70, 70, 73, 73, 75, 76, 77, 79, 79, 79, 80, 82, 82, 87, 89, 90, 90, 93, 93, 95, 96, 96, 96, 96, 99, 100, 100, 100]
Fifty results of 1-50 and fifty results of 51-100 is reasonable. Assuming, of course, that you were rolling d100 and not d200 or something.
Every initial digit is represented, and every final digit is represented.
There's exactly one instance of a number being rolled twice in a row. (61 61) This is within range of what we'd expect in 100 rolls of a d100.
