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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #98789 > unrolled thread

Fake random numbers? Bad programmers?

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

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#99048 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

I seems you answer without reading the complete message.


On 2016/12/12 16:15, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> 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? :)
>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

#99050 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

On 12/12/2016 10:46 PM, Johan Nel wrote:
> I seems you answer without reading the complete message.

The problem is always the label/name/tag/sticker/stamp "random"!!! :)

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

#99070 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

On 12/12/2016 09:49 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 12/12/2016 10:46 PM, Johan Nel wrote:
>> I seems you answer without reading the complete message.
> 
> The problem is always the label/name/tag/sticker/stamp "random"!!! :)

Two additional problems:

1) The computer programming mindset exists within layers of simulacra.
It's common for programmers to talk about the representation of a thing
as if it were the thing. Example: A term or notion like "concurrent
threads" is often used where a more realistic description like
"interleaved threads" is just as convenient.

2) It is naive to expect truth in advertising and accuracy in
communication. There is significant variation in the capabilities of
people, their motivations, methods, and goals, their knowledge,
perspectives, attitudes, their opinions, preferences, style, and so on.

Beyond this, people have the capacity for demented information
processing. Many people may not have developed much skill in monitoring
(self-awareness) and controlling (self-regulation) that animalistic
baggage (bias) that distorts interpretation and disrupts collaboration.

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

#99075 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

"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.

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

#99076 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

On 12/12/2016 05:41 PM, Michael Moroney 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.
>
Such a "hardware generator" is involved in some password generators,
when an additional entropy is provided
by random user typing or mouse movement ( like e.g. in Keepass )

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#99078 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

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.

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.

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

#99084 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

On 12/12/2016 05:51 PM, root wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
Taken exactly, you are right. But practically, you are not.
The level or correlation and predictability
can be hold at negligible level.

E.g. the for the Keepass random PW generator
one has to do a boring lot of mouse movement.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#99105 — Re: Randomness and Taro

On 13/12/2016 1:10 AM, Poutnik wrote:
>>
> Taken exactly, you are right. But practically, you are not.
> The level or correlation and predictability
> can be hold at negligible level.
>
> E.g. the for the Keepass random PW generator
> one has to do a boring lot of mouse movement.

Do you play with Taro cards? :)

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

#99089 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

"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. 

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

#99114 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 11:22:31 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
> Well, we have had about 15 billion years to predict the snow pattern on the 
> old B&W TVs, without any success so far.

For some purposes, a very important part of randomness is that it not
be manipulable.  While it may not be possible to predict the snow pattern
that would be displayed a vintage television tuned to channel 8 in an
area hundreds of miles away from any transmitter that is using that
channel, someone who knew that the snow pattern on such a television
was being used as a source of randomness could very easily influence
the pattern and then "predict" what "random" numbers would be chosen.

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

#99129 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

<supercat@casperkitty.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 11:22:31 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>> Well, we have had about 15 billion years to predict the snow pattern on 
>> the
>> old B&W TVs, without any success so far.
>
> For some purposes, a very important part of randomness is that it not
> be manipulable.  While it may not be possible to predict the snow pattern
> that would be displayed a vintage television tuned to channel 8 in an
> area hundreds of miles away from any transmitter that is using that
> channel, someone who knew that the snow pattern on such a television
> was being used as a source of randomness could very easily influence
> the pattern and then "predict" what "random" numbers would be chosen.

I wasn't proposing an implementation, I was using it as a device that many 
people could relate to for illustrative purposes..  The snow is a 
manifestation of the 4 K radiation resulting from the alleged "big bang". 
Not to be contused with a TV show of the same name.  One can get the same 
result from a resistor at room temperature followed by an amplifier.  One 
can digitize the result and then apply von Neuman "whitening".  Problem 
solved. Not the best solution but *a* solution. 

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

#99138 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
[...]
> I wasn't proposing an implementation, I was using it as a device that many 
> people could relate to for illustrative purposes..  The snow is a 
> manifestation of the 4 K radiation resulting from the alleged "big bang". 
> Not to be contused with a TV show of the same name.  One can get the same 
> result from a resistor at room temperature followed by an amplifier.  One 
> can digitize the result and then apply von Neuman "whitening".  Problem 
> solved. Not the best solution but *a* solution. 

(Closer to 3 Kelvins, not 4.)

According to one source, radio noise from the cosmic background
constitutes about 1% of the static you see on the screen when you tune
an old-style US analog TV between channels.  (Other regions use
different frequencies, which may or may not make a difference.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#99104 — Re: From randomness to astrology

On 13/12/2016 12:51 AM, root wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

As long as you do NOT gamble, encrypt nor predict the future .... :)

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

#99242

On 12/11/2016 7:56 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> How to determine whether a random number generator is fake?
>
> How to determine whether a random number generator is cheating?
[...]

I would think that, since a "true" random number generator can generate any 
sequence of numbers (even the same number multiple times in a row), I'm not 
sure you could prove "badness" here.

Reminds me of this:

     http://xkcd.com/221/

-- 
Kenneth Brody

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

#99243

Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> writes:

> On 12/11/2016 7:56 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> How to determine whether a random number generator is fake?
>>
>> How to determine whether a random number generator is cheating?
> [...]
>
> I would think that, since a "true" random number generator can
> generate any sequence of numbers (even the same number multiple times
> in a row), I'm not sure you could prove "badness" here.
>
> Reminds me of this:
>
>     http://xkcd.com/221/

Not "prove".  But as the numbers get farther and farther away from the
expected distribution your eyebrows raise progressively higher.

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

#99382

On 12/13/2016 2:38 PM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/11/2016 7:56 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> How to determine whether a random number generator is fake?
>>>
>>> How to determine whether a random number generator is cheating?
>> [...]
>>
>> I would think that, since a "true" random number generator can
>> generate any sequence of numbers (even the same number multiple times
>> in a row), I'm not sure you could prove "badness" here.
>>
>> Reminds me of this:
>>
>>     http://xkcd.com/221/
>
> Not "prove".  But as the numbers get farther and farther away from the
> expected distribution your eyebrows raise progressively higher.

Won't this show a perfect distribution over time?

:-)

=====

#include <limits.h>

int myPRNG(void)
     {
     static int next = 0;

     if ( next == INT_MAX )
         next = 0;
     else
         next++;

     return(next);
     }

=====

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

#99258

Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> writes:

> On 12/11/2016 7:56 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> How to determine whether a random number generator is fake?
>>
>> How to determine whether a random number generator is cheating?
> [...]
>
> I would think that, since a "true" random number generator can
> generate any sequence of numbers (even the same number multiple times
> in a row), I'm not sure you could prove "badness" here.
>
> Reminds me of this:
>
>     http://xkcd.com/221/

Because "true" random number generators pass certain statistical tests
with probability close-enough-to-one as to make no matter.

"So, if it is impossible to definitively prove randomness, what can we
 do instead? The pragmatic approach is to take many sequences of random
 numbers from a given generator and subject them to a battery of
 statistical tests. As the sequences pass more of the tests, the
 confidence in the randomness of the numbers increases and so does the
 confidence in the generator" -- https://www.random.org/analysis/

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

#99571

Tue, 13 Dec 2016 14:35:01 -0500
Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> schrieb:

[Schnipp]

>I would think that, since a "true" random number generator can generate any 
>sequence of numbers (even the same number multiple times in a row), I'm not 
>sure you could prove "badness" here.
>
>Reminds me of this:
>
>     http://xkcd.com/221/

Or this:
http://dilbert.com/strip/2001-10-25
-- 
Jan van den Broek
balglaas@xs4all.nl

No fish were harmed in posting this message.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web