Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #125253 > unrolled thread

Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-10 23:50 +0800
    Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-01-10 08:33 -0800
      Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 00:55 +0800
    Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 10:52 -0600
      Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 00:55 +0800
        Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 10:59 -0600
          Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 01:00 +0800
            Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-01-10 09:15 -0800
              Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-01-10 23:16 +0000
            Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 11:16 -0600
      Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 10:55 -0600
        Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 00:58 +0800
          Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-01-10 22:07 +0100
    Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-01-10 08:58 -0800
      Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 00:59 +0800
        Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 11:07 -0600
          Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 01:15 +0800
            Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 11:25 -0600
              Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 01:45 +0800
                Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 12:48 -0600
            Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-01-10 09:27 -0800
              Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 01:43 +0800
              Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-01-10 22:58 +0100
                Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-01-10 14:18 -0800
          Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2018-01-10 13:00 -0500
            Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 13:07 -0600
              Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2018-01-11 12:48 -0500
    Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-01-10 10:20 -0700
      Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 01:22 +0800
        Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 11:32 -0600
          Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2018-01-10 18:15 +0000
            Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-01-10 13:09 -0600
        Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-01-10 10:38 -0700
          Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 01:48 +0800
            Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-01-10 11:43 -0700
      Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-01-10 18:20 +0000
        Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-01-10 13:23 -0500
          Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 05:16 +0800
    Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-01-10 12:29 -0800
    Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Alexander Huszagh <ahuszagh@gmail.com> - 2018-01-10 19:19 -0800
      Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-01-11 02:52 -0800
        Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-01-11 07:47 -0500

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#125253 — Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#125255

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 3:50:37 PM UTC, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
> 
Yes and no.

It's easy enough to simulate a cube bouncing on a solid surface, the problem
is to give it enough chaos to pass muster as a die. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125257

On 11/1/2018 00:33, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 3:50:37 PM UTC, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
>>
> Yes and no.
>
> It's easy enough to simulate a cube bouncing on a solid surface, the problem
> is to give it enough chaos to pass muster as a die.
>

We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box 
and the surface? :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125256

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:50:19 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?


If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
"truly" random than any other PRNG.

If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125258

On 11/1/2018 00:52, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
> If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
> "truly" random than any other PRNG.
>
> If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
> better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").

We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box 
and the surface? :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125263

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:55:29 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 00:52, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
>> "truly" random than any other PRNG.
>>
>> If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
>> better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").
>
>We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box 
>and the surface? :)


Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
randomness.  If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the
physical motion of dice.

IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125264

On 11/1/2018 00:59, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
> Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
> randomness.  If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
> means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
> from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the
> physical motion of dice.
>
> IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
> source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.

So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and 
computers?

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125266

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 5:00:52 PM UTC, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> 
> So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and 
> computers?
> 
Basically, the flow of fluids. You can model them by making an arbitrarily
fine lattice, but you can never describe the behaviour perfectly, and
small errors accumulate, leading to big changes in results after a few
steps, depending on your approximations.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125296

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 5:00:52 PM UTC, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> 
>> So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and 
>> computers?
>> 
> Basically, the flow of fluids. You can model them by making an arbitrarily
> fine lattice, but you can never describe the behaviour perfectly, and
> small errors accumulate, leading to big changes in results after a few
> steps, depending on your approximations.

Even some very simple mechanical systems exhibit unmanageable
sensitivity to initial conditions, for example,. a double pendulum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U39RMUzCjiU  (tech. version)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ1hF_-cubA  (cool version!)

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125268

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:00:42 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 00:59, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
>> randomness.  If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
>> means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
>> from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the
>> physical motion of dice.
>>
>> IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
>> source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.
>
>So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and 
>computers?


According to most interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, there are
phenomenon that are objectively unpredictable.  For example, there is
no apparent way, and if QM is correct, no possible way, to determine
when an unstable atomic nucleus will decay, not matter how much
information we have about that nucleus before hand.  We can make
*statistical* statements about such things (eg. half of all carbon-14
atoms in a lump of coal will decay in 5700 years), but the individual
events are not predictable (there's no telling when a particular
carbon-14 will decay).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125259

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:52:24 -0600, Robert Wessel
<robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:50:19 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
><toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
>
>
>If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
>"truly" random than any other PRNG.
>
>If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
>better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").


Or you could use real dice:

http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic

One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering.  Be sure to watch the
video.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125261

On 11/1/2018 00:55, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
> Or you could use real dice:
>
> http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic
>
> One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering.  Be sure to watch the
> video.
>

Could you shrink the whole thing into the size of a capacitor, and make 
it accessible by electronics? :)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125290

On 10/01/18 17:58, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 11/1/2018 00:55, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> Or you could use real dice:
>>
>> http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic
>>
>> One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering.  Be sure to watch the
>> video.
>>
> 
> Could you shrink the whole thing into the size of a capacitor, and make 
> it accessible by electronics? :)
> 

Yes - get a high resolution g-sensor or micro-mechanical gyro, and use 
the lowest few bits.  There is always enough shaking (at least here on 
earth) to give high entropy on them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125260

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?

VIA C7 and later CPUs have an on-die random number generator as part
of their crypto engine.  You can setup an inexpensive C7 machine on
your network and have it generate truly random numbers for you by
remote procedure call all day long.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125262

On 11/1/2018 00:58, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
>
> VIA C7 and later CPUs have an on-die random number generator as part
> of their crypto engine.  You can setup an inexpensive C7 machine on
> your network and have it generate truly random numbers for you by
> remote procedure call all day long.

I found people selling USB devices in Amazon claimed to generate good 
random numbers...


-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125265

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:59:14 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 00:58, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 10:50:37 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
>>
>> VIA C7 and later CPUs have an on-die random number generator as part
>> of their crypto engine.  You can setup an inexpensive C7 machine on
>> your network and have it generate truly random numbers for you by
>> remote procedure call all day long.
>
>I found people selling USB devices in Amazon claimed to generate good 
>random numbers...


Tread carefully.  The problem is that proper random output is really
hard to verify.  Building a device that appears to emit random bits,
and passes any black-box test for randomness, but actually is fully
deterministic, is easy.  Building a device that actually produces good
quality true random bits reliably is rather harder.  And as I said,
you pretty much can't tell the different from the outside.

Most recent Intel CPUs include the RDRAND facility, although there is
some controversy about the whitening procedure they use.  That being
said it's perfectly reasonable to use RDRAND as one of several inputs
into an entropy pool, even if you don't trust Intel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125267

On 11/1/2018 01:07, Robert Wessel wrote:
> Tread carefully.  The problem is that proper random output is really
> hard to verify.  Building a device that appears to emit random bits,
> and passes any black-box test for randomness, but actually is fully
> deterministic, is easy.  Building a device that actually produces good
> quality true random bits reliably is rather harder.  And as I said,
> you pretty much can't tell the different from the outside.

Is there mathematics to prove that something is 100% random? I supposed 
most mathematics are NOT random, otherwise, the results would not be 
reproducable .... :)


-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125271

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:15:18 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 01:07, Robert Wessel wrote:
>> Tread carefully.  The problem is that proper random output is really
>> hard to verify.  Building a device that appears to emit random bits,
>> and passes any black-box test for randomness, but actually is fully
>> deterministic, is easy.  Building a device that actually produces good
>> quality true random bits reliably is rather harder.  And as I said,
>> you pretty much can't tell the different from the outside.
>
>Is there mathematics to prove that something is 100% random? I supposed 
>most mathematics are NOT random, otherwise, the results would not be 
>reproducable .... :)


No, there is not.  In at least some philosophical sense, the notion
that you can take a string of bits and say that they're random is
absurd.  By definition, once you've generated the bits, they're no
longer random.

There are tests for "randomness" that people regularly do.  Perhaps
the most famous is the suite of tests known as "Diehard", although
it's rather outdated now.  The problem is that these just look for
some statistical measure of things "looking*" random, they can't
really test for actual randomness.  For example, it is perfectly
plausible for a series of fair coins flips to generate 100 heads in a
row (in fact it's exactly as likely as any other particular sequence
of 100 coin flips).  Things like Diehard will almost always flag that
result as having "bad" randomness.


*Yeah, and we don't really know what that means, and in practice turns
out to be a bunch of heuristics with little solid justification.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125277

On 11/1/2018 01:25, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
> No, there is not.  In at least some philosophical sense, the notion
> that you can take a string of bits and say that they're random is
> absurd.  By definition, once you've generated the bits, they're no
> longer random.
>
> There are tests for "randomness" that people regularly do.  Perhaps
> the most famous is the suite of tests known as "Diehard", although
> it's rather outdated now.  The problem is that these just look for
> some statistical measure of things "looking*" random, they can't
>....
> *Yeah, and we don't really know what that means, and in practice turns
> out to be a bunch of heuristics with little solid justification.

The only way to prove something being random is to analyze its outcomes 
using statistics, I believe. And hence Big Data?

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#125286

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:45:59 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 01:25, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> No, there is not.  In at least some philosophical sense, the notion
>> that you can take a string of bits and say that they're random is
>> absurd.  By definition, once you've generated the bits, they're no
>> longer random.
>>
>> There are tests for "randomness" that people regularly do.  Perhaps
>> the most famous is the suite of tests known as "Diehard", although
>> it's rather outdated now.  The problem is that these just look for
>> some statistical measure of things "looking*" random, they can't
>>....
>> *Yeah, and we don't really know what that means, and in practice turns
>> out to be a bunch of heuristics with little solid justification.
>
>The only way to prove something being random is to analyze its outcomes 
>using statistics, I believe. And hence Big Data?


Certainly nothing like that would ever constitute "proof".  Nor would
any of those sorts of tests actually distinguish true randomness from
a decent PRNG.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web