Random Numbers
Locked
Random Numbers
 
|
Re: Random Numbers
|
|
Scratch that - it rejected mine too. See below: //// Aside^3 yeah, I believe random.org provides the same "randomization" essentially taking atmospheric static and using the white "bits" as either the value or the seed. But even then this is "random" only in relation to the time it is captured... (see below for the tangent lol) *Insert tangent* If you had two computers hooked up to the same antenna picking up the noise you would get the same value (same noise)...(and if its implementation goes so far as to take other internal/external states as part of the randomization, then fine... I'll go further and say that external/internal PC states can be replicated to).
I know replication is a separate issue from true randomization, but they are part of the same problem. Just because you have a "SEED" from a finite number of seeds which can cause easier replication (and therefore is considered to be pseudo-random) doesn't necessarily provide evidence that picking up atmospheric noise is any less 'replicable' and therefore is true randomization (it's only harder to replicate! and most certainly would be a lesser of many evils selection for one trying to obtain true randomization). It is possible to replicate that atmospheric noise (and no, I'm not saying by being God, or some crazy mad-scientist -- it could be as easy as reading in the same bits of data that helped generate the number at two different sources); I'd say that if reading the SAME data produced different results on either the same machine or two different machines, that would be closer to randomization (if not true, save implementation details) -- however, replicating atmospheric static is just not worth anyones time =P.
Which ever, what ever -- I know we're all speaking the same thing here and this can QUICKLY turn into a philosophical discussion! Which in the end, I do agree with Jon in that "up to what mother nature will provide" [within the context and limits of CS]. Just wanted to provide a counter-counter-point to Jons counter-point. =P
Granted, I haven't looked into module you pointed at, but perhaps you've obtained the holy-grail of randomization. But I think, in the end, it comes down to the operational definition of "true randomization" and what threshold satisfies that definition.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 1:13 PM, J. R. Carroll <[hidden email]> wrote:
|
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |