Re: Fake randomness is still random?

From	"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Fake randomness is still random?
Date	2016-12-12 11:22 -0600
Message-ID	<eb84mfF95iaU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<o2jiap$oo0$1@dont-email.me> <o2lhen$o5i$1@dont-email.me> <o2mbb3$c16$3@dont-email.me> <o2mjvn$r6p$1@pcls7.std.com> <o2mkhm$dud$1@news.albasani.net>

Show all headers | View raw

"root" wrote:

> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>On 12/12/2016 2:53 PM, Johan Nel wrote:
>>>> A random number generator can never be "real", we can only try to
>>>> emulate it.
>>
>>>Come on... If it's not 100% random, do NOT label it "random"!!! Think
>>>orange juice in a box! How about **extra virgin** olive oil?
>>
>>>Call it pseudo-random or neo-random? :)
>>
>> In the documentation, pure software "random" number generators are almost
>> always described as pseudorandom, not actually random.  For real 
>> randomness
>> where a pseudorandom sequence isn't good enough, some sort of hardware
>> generator is needed.
>
>
> There can be no "true" random number generator even admitting hardware
> assist. Any amount of serial correlation will result in non-randomness.
> A source without serial correlation would require infinite bandwidth.

Well, we have had about 15 billion years to predict the snow pattern on the 
old B&W TVs, without any success so far.

> The whole question is irrelevant. For any pseudo-random source,
> the question is how long would you have to observe the source
> to have some given degree of certainty that the source was
> not random or, rather, how non-random the source was.

Newsgroup pollution feeds trimmed.

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