This question has been revised from its original form, and the OP believes it should now be reopened. I don't agree enough that I would be willing to unilaterally reopen it, so I'm letting you guys decide.
After reading carefylly through the question, I have no idea at all what the poster is even asking or what kind of help he is expecting.
It sounds like the poster is trying to make discoveries whose main and possibly only interest lies in recreational mathematics and in that they brought joy to their discoverer. (edit: I'd like to stress that being recreational mathematics is not what's wrong with the question.)
Now I'm trying not to be offensive, but it seems more like the author is advertising himself than asking a real question. For instance, I don't see what this MRB-constant has to do with it at all. I hope some people will understand what I mean if I say it all sounds a bit crackpotty.
Unfortunately I cannot vote to reopen because now I can't choose not to do so.
The question should be re-opened. I thought the linked article was interesting and some of the complaints are unjustified. For example, perhaps "truly random" means "all but a countable number", or maybe "all but a set of measure 0". Marvin is asking for help clarifying this concept.
@Asaf Karagila, You might like the question a little better now. I changed the title and added a little more context to the question.