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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #95355 > unrolled thread

Fair, truly random random number generator

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

Contents

  Fair, truly random random number generator "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 20:31 +0800
    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 07:48 -0500
      Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 21:07 +0800
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-28 14:21 +0100
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 16:22 +0100
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-28 16:30 +0100
              Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 16:32 +0100
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 23:11 +0800
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 11:17 +0000
              Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 20:14 +0800
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-10-31 12:32 +0000
                  Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 12:48 +0000
                    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:30 +0800
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 12:47 +0000
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-10-28 09:32 -0500
    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-28 07:14 -0700
      Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-28 18:07 -0700
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-01 17:45 -0700
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 18:57 -0700
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-02 10:06 +0100
              Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-11-02 04:46 -0600
              Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 05:06 -0700
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-02 13:43 +0100
                  Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 06:02 -0700
                    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-02 16:08 +0100
                      Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:21 -0700
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-02 08:20 -0500
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-03 17:56 -0700
              Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 18:16 -0700
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-03 18:48 -0700
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 09:17 -0700
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-11-04 17:59 +0000
                  Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 11:55 -0700
                    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:43 -0700
                  Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-04 12:40 -0700
              Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:49 -0700
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-04 13:23 -0700
                  Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 13:32 -0700
                    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 18:48 -0400
                      Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 16:03 -0700
                        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-11-05 16:50 -0700
                        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator ImperiusDamian <damianblack.wolf@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 19:52 -0400
                          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 17:06 -0700
      Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 23:13 +0800
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-10-29 12:12 -0400
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 00:22 +0800
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2016-10-29 12:26 -0400
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-29 09:44 -0700
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-01 08:13 -0700
              Re: Fair, truly random random number generator supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 08:31 -0700
                Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-02 12:58 -0700
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-29 12:37 -0400
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-29 11:57 -0700
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-30 17:13 +0100
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-10-30 11:07 -0600
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-30 12:20 -0700
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 11:18 +0000
        Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Ed Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:39 -0700
          Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 11:13 -0700
            [OT] gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 02:36 +0800
              Re: [OT] gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 12:07 -0700
                Re: [OT] gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:02 +0800
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-11-03 19:56 +0000
            Re: Fair, truly random random number generator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 16:21 -0700
    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 14:49 -0700
      Re: Fair, truly random random number generator jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-29 15:29 -0700
    Re: Fair, truly random random number generator Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-10-29 19:09 -0700
    Thank you all for the replies! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 18:42 +0800

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#95683 — Re: [OT] gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation?

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:36:13 PM UTC-4, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 4/11/2016 2:13 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> > Just some patterns I've noticed thanks to that one thing popping into my
> > head about the gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation.  I've found them, at
> > least, interesting to ponder.
> 
> Is this proven? Or just an interesting coincidence, in the movies?

Is it proven?  No. :-)  But, it does work out if you test it.

Go to:
    http://www.wolframalpha.com

Type in:
    July 3, 1985 + 1.21 gigaseconds - 7 years

November 5, 2016.  The full target date is November 5, 2023.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#95725 — Re: [OT] gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation?

On 4/11/2016 3:07 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> Go to:
>     http://www.wolframalpha.com
>
> Type in:
>     July 3, 1985 + 1.21 gigaseconds - 7 years
>
> November 5, 2016.  The full target date is November 5, 2023.

Should we prophetize a new break-though in science? :)

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

#95690

In article <657ff289-4534-4c0a-b28c-82dc506673ce@googlegroups.com>,
Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here's an interesting "pattern" I saw that may not really exist.  The
>Back to the Future movie ... if you take the release date of Back to
>the Future (July 3, 1985), and add 1.21 gigawatts, I mean 1.21 giga-
>seconds to it, it lands on a day that's exactly seven years to the day
>ahead of this Saturday, November 5, 2016.

Beyond hope.

>November 5 is Guy Fawkes Day ("Remember, remember the 5th of November")
>when Fawkes tried to blow up the British Parliament in 1605.  He nearly
>succeeded, but was caught last minute.

Paranoid Freak.

>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future
>    http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=July+3,+1985+%2B+1.21+billion+seconds+-+7+years

Make America Great Again.

>November 5 is also the day Doc. Brown went back to in the year 1955, the
>day he "invented time travel."

Crackpot.

>Back to the Future 2 is 108 minutes 6 seconds long, and it has the Cubs
>winning the World Series in baseball (which they did yesterday after
>108 years).

Creepy Freakazoid.

>All kinds of "patterns" emerging from that movie series.  Biff/Tump is
>another interesting one for this same timeframe (2015 he came on the
>scene, and if he's elected and re-elected, it would carry through to
>2025).

More than a few screws loose.

>There's a two-part episode of DS9 which has a similar theme as the
>future seen in Back to the Future 2, and for that same general
>timeframe as the date indicated by July 3, 1985 + 1.21 billion seconds
>(it was August 2024 in the DS9 episodes, "Future Tense," just about
>nine months after November 5, 2023).

Whacko.

>A similar general premise was in the TV show Sliders, where they once
>slide into a world divided by tech and online people, and non-tech and
>offline people.  Of course an onliner falls in love with an offliner.
>:-)

Off Topic.

>Just some patterns I've noticed thanks to that one thing popping into my
>head about the gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation.  I've found them, at
>least, interesting to ponder.

NutJob.

>Best regards,
>Rick C. Hodgin


=============== ALL FRESHMEN PLEASE NOTE ===============

To minimize scheduling confusion, please realize that if you are taking one
course which is offered at only one time on a given day, and another which is
offered at all times on that day, the second class will be arranged as to
afford maximum inconvenience to the student.  For example, if you happen
to work on campus, you will have 1-2 hours between classes.  If you commute,
there will be a minimum of 6 hours between the two classes.


-- 
Shikata ga nai...

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

#95705

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:13:13 PM UTC-4, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 1:39:37 PM UTC-4, Ed Prochak wrote:
> > Be careful. The human brain is tuned to see patterns. Sometimes we
> > see or hear patterns that when analyzed do not really exist.
> 
> Here's an interesting "pattern" I saw that may not really exist.  The
> Back to the Future movie ... if you take the release date of Back to
> the Future (July 3, 1985), and add 1.21 gigawatts, I mean 1.21 giga-
> seconds to it, it lands on a day that's exactly seven years to the day
> ahead of this Saturday, November 5, 2016.
> 
> November 5 is Guy Fawkes Day ("Remember, remember the 5th of November")
> when Fawkes tried to blow up the British Parliament in 1605.  He nearly
> succeeded, but was caught last minute.
> 
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future
>     http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=July+3,+1985+%2B+1.21+billion+seconds+-+7+years
> 
> November 5 is also the day Doc. Brown went back to in the year 1955, the
> day he "invented time travel."
> 
> Back to the Future 2 is 108 minutes 6 seconds long, and it has the Cubs
> winning the World Series in baseball (which they did yesterday after
> 108 years).
> 
> All kinds of "patterns" emerging from that movie series.  Biff/Tump is
> another interesting one for this same timeframe (2015 he came on the
> scene, and if he's elected and re-elected, it would carry through to
> 2025).
> 
> There's a two-part episode of DS9 which has a similar theme as the
> future seen in Back to the Future 2, and for that same general
> timeframe as the date indicated by July 3, 1985 + 1.21 billion seconds
> (it was August 2024 in the DS9 episodes, "Future Tense," just about
> nine months after November 5, 2023).
> 
> A similar general premise was in the TV show Sliders, where they once
> slide into a world divided by tech and online people, and non-tech and
> offline people.  Of course an onliner falls in love with an offliner.
> :-)
> 
> Just some patterns I've noticed thanks to that one thing popping into my
> head about the gigawatts = gigaseconds correlation.  I've found them, at
> least, interesting to ponder.

Another "corroborating facet" of this same timeframe comes from the 1966
Star Trek series episode entitled "Mirror Mirror" where Kirk, Spock,
Uhura, and Scotty are beamed to an alternate evil universe.  Kirk tries
to tell alternate Spock that he is illogical for being a part of this
evil.  At one point prime Kirk asks Spock how long until the empire
falls?  Alternate Spock replies, "Approximately 240 years" with the
inevitable outcome being, "The empire shall be overthrown of course."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTcpwqwMzog&t=1m11s

"July 4, 1776 + 240 years" is July 4, 2016.  "Approximately 240 years"
places it from 239.51 to 240.49 years, which gives us a range of Jan 5,
2016 to Jan 3, 2017.

A pattern that may not exist.

Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#95401

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:31:47 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Anyone got an existing and truly random random number generator function 
> for me to copy? :)
> 

Elaborating on the "how it's used" hinted at by Lew Pitcher
(I assume you know this, but it hasn't come up yet in this
thread), the vital thing is to seed the PRNG from a source
of entropy. If you call srand() with a constant (or equivalently,
neglect to call srand() at all), rand() will produce the same
sequence of values on every run of the program.

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

#95403

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 5:49:39 PM UTC-4, luser droog wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:31:47 AM UTC-5, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> > Anyone got an existing and truly random random number generator function 
> > for me to copy? :)
> > 
> 
> Elaborating on the "how it's used" hinted at by Lew Pitcher
> (I assume you know this, but it hasn't come up yet in this
> thread), the vital thing is to seed the PRNG from a source
> of entropy. If you call srand() with a constant (or equivalently,
> neglect to call srand() at all), rand() will produce the same
> sequence of values on every run of the program.

Which can be very useful for debugging. Not being able to repeat the sequence of random numbers that lead to a given unexpected result can make investigating that result very difficult.

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

#95407

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 6:31:47 AM UTC-6, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Anyone got an existing and truly random random number generator function 
> for me to copy? :)

No deterministic pseudorandom number generator can produce truly random numbers.

However, there are plenty of PRNGs that produce output that is evenly distributed 
over the possible values - the simple mixed congruential PRNG will do that.

John Savard

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

#95426 — Thank you all for the replies!

Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web