Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.conspiracy, alt.comp.freeware, comp.programming, comp.lang.clipper, comp.lang.c, comp.lang.ada |
| Subject | Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? |
| Date | 2016-12-12 01:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eb6a72Fqd00U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink) |
| References | <o2jiap$oo0$1@dont-email.me> <o2jv9f$ae$2@gioia.aioe.org> <o2jvr2$f7$2@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 6 groups.
Am 11.12.2016 17:46, schrieb Mr. Man-wai Chang: >> It is simple. If you cannot determine all those things - it is random. >> Random is just a definition of some math evil priest. > > Your Honor: > > If the randomness was never truly random, why did they called it "random > number" then? > > Did they all lie about their work, which was driving the *WHOLE* game > industry. which then drive hardware sales? :) > Software cannot be really random, since a code is actually a set of instructions and those are carried out in non-random ways. Random numbers require a physical process, which is unpredictable in nature. For this purpose there are often noise creating diodes used. They are used in the 'wrong' direction and this causes internal 'noise' inside the semiconductor. Now the noise could be filtered out and the result used to create random numbers. Software can only create pseudo-random numbers. TH
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 05:33 -0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:05 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-12-11 08:48 -0600
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:00 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 16:42 -0600
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 22:11 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2016-12-12 10:00 -0500
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 23:03 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2016-12-12 10:17 -0500
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 23:30 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> - 2016-12-12 10:57 -0500
Re: The real and fair DIce of Solomon? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 22:13 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 00:46 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 10:45 -0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-12-12 01:44 +0100
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 02:02 +0100
Re: Dice: mechanical vs electrical "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 22:51 +0800
Re: Dice: mechanical vs electrical bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 20:17 +0100
Re: Fake randomness is still random? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 22:15 +0800
Re: Fake randomness is still random? Johan Nel <johan.nel@xsinet.co.za> - 2016-12-12 16:46 +0200
Re: Fake randomness is still random? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 22:49 +0800
Re: Fake randomness is still random? Adam Jensen <hanzer@riseup.net> - 2016-12-12 10:35 -0500
Re: Fake randomness is still random? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-12 16:41 +0000
Re: Fake randomness is still random? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:45 +0100
Re: Fake randomness is still random? root <NoEMail@home.org> - 2016-12-12 16:51 +0000
Re: Fake randomness is still random? Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-12-12 18:10 +0100
Re: Randomness and Taro "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 02:28 +0800
Re: Fake randomness is still random? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 11:22 -0600
Re: Fake randomness is still random? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-12 11:17 -0800
Re: Fake randomness is still random? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 14:49 -0600
Re: Fake randomness is still random? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 13:33 -0800
Re: From randomness to astrology "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 02:28 +0800
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-13 14:35 -0500
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-12-13 12:38 -0700
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-12-14 14:45 -0500
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-13 21:02 +0000
Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Jan van den Broek <fortytwo@xs4all.nl> - 2016-12-15 22:08 +0100
csiph-web