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

Groups > comp.programming > #7092 > unrolled thread

Fake random numbers? Bad programmers?

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

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? "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? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-12-12 07:08 -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 00:05 +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? 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? Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-12-12 07:56 -0800
      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: 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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#7092 — Fake random numbers? Bad programmers?

How to determine whether a random number generator is fake?

How to determine whether a random number generator is cheating?

How do you catch bad programming, algorithm designers and 
mathematicians? Use MP3 and JPEG encoding as examples, which involves 
something called Fourier Transform! :)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#7093

"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?

Put a query such as < validate prng> into google

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

#7094

On 11/12/2016 10:48 PM, Osmium wrote:
>
> Put a query such as < validate prng> into google

Ha ha ha... who generated content for defined "validate prng"?

Why should we trust it, Your Honor? Expert??? ha ha ha ... :)

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

#7102

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 00:00:31 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/12/2016 10:48 PM, Osmium wrote:
>>
>> Put a query such as < validate prng> into google
>
>Ha ha ha... who generated content for defined "validate prng"?
>
>Why should we trust it, Your Honor? Expert??? ha ha ha ... :)

     Make your own, if you don't trust what others have made
available.
     With your paranoia, why do you even use computers?

-- 
Shill #3. 
Strategic Writer, Psychotronic World Dominator and FEMA camp
counselor.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3618/5747904676_1e202191d3_b.jpg
All hail the taco! http://www.taconati.org/

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

#7111

On 12/12/2016 6:42 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>
>> Ha ha ha... who generated content for defined "validate prng"?
>> Why should we trust it, Your Honor? Expert??? ha ha ha ... :)
>
> Make your own, if you don't trust what others have made
> available.



> With your paranoia, why do you even use computers?

If someone was extremely paranoia, he/she/it would NOT trust anything 
sensed. Basically, he/she/it was dead like a ghost.

But I can still look at the Sun, the Moon and the stars. :)

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

#7117

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote on 12/12/2016 :
> On 12/12/2016 6:42 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
>>>
>>> Ha ha ha... who generated content for defined "validate prng"?
>>> Why should we trust it, Your Honor? Expert??? ha ha ha ... :)
>>
>> Make your own, if you don't trust what others have made
>> available.
>
>
>
>> With your paranoia, why do you even use computers?
>
> If someone was extremely paranoia, he/she/it would NOT trust anything sensed. 
> Basically, he/she/it was dead like a ghost.
>
> But I can still look at the Sun, the Moon and the stars. :)

RNG is not the same as PRNG and PRNG is not the same as CSPRNG. There 
are cryptographic 'distinguishers' which can help to distinguish 
between randomness and a covered plaintext, but you would have to trust 
that it works as advertised.

Basically, you have to trust somebody. Whether the random source is 
thermal noise or minute differences in the timing of somewhat regular 
natural events you might need a physicist to determine that no innate 
bias exists.

Then you probably need a mathematician to check out the math involved 
in converting and using that source's output to pick from a set of 
numbers. There is no such thing as a random number, only numbers 
selected from a set of numbers by a random process, that is 'a randomly 
chosen' number.

Then you need a coder/programmer to check out the particular 
implementation of that mathematical process to ensure that no bias or 
other kind of error is introduced by the implementation process itself.

If you are that kind of polymath, then maybe you can do this all by 
yourself, but that is very unlikely. Can you trust yourself to do this 
kind of evaluation, even if you are an expert in all of these 
disciplines? You might miss something, nobody's perfect, you may need a 
team -- which again means trusting someone.

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

#7118

On 12/12/2016 11:00 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
> If you are that kind of polymath, then maybe you can do this all by
> yourself, but that is very unlikely. Can you trust yourself to do this
> kind of evaluation, even if you are an expert in all of these
> disciplines? You might miss something, nobody's perfect, you may need a
> team -- which again means trusting someone.

Does encryption protocols use random numbers at all?

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

#7119

On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 4:03:42 PM UTC+1, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

> Does encryption protocols use random numbers at all?

Pseudo-random, based on the weather forecast in the bay area.

Julio

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

#7120

Mr. Man-wai Chang formulated on Monday :
> On 12/12/2016 11:00 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>> If you are that kind of polymath, then maybe you can do this all by
>> yourself, but that is very unlikely. Can you trust yourself to do this
>> kind of evaluation, even if you are an expert in all of these
>> disciplines? You might miss something, nobody's perfect, you may need a
>> team -- which again means trusting someone.
>
> Does encryption protocols use random numbers at all?

Yes. Cryptography often uses CSPRNGs whose 'seed' is from a true RNG. 
Most other applications which need 'random numbers' do not need to be 
that unpredictably random.

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

#7121

On 12/12/2016 11:17 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>> Does encryption protocols use random numbers at all?
>
> Yes. Cryptography often uses CSPRNGs whose 'seed' is from a true RNG.
> Most other applications which need 'random numbers' do not need to be
> that unpredictably random.

Then it's a lie. Because the so-called digital random number is never 
random.

Could we ditch *ALL* digital encryption software and hardware? :)

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

#7124

Mr. Man-wai Chang pretended :
> On 12/12/2016 11:17 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>> Does encryption protocols use random numbers at all?
>>
>> Yes. Cryptography often uses CSPRNGs whose 'seed' is from a true RNG.
>> Most other applications which need 'random numbers' do not need to be
>> that unpredictably random.
>
> Then it's a lie. Because the so-called digital random number is never random.

You can make any claims you want about a term you just made up. A 
number is a number no matter what base you decide on. By digital do you 
mean base ten (based on number of fingers) or base two (binary)? A 
rhetorical question, as it doesn't matter.

> Could we ditch *ALL* digital encryption software and hardware? :)

Go ahead, it matters not to me. You might like to read this which 
touches on your former question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generator_attack

If you are asking questions only so that you can argue against the 
answers, I'm done here.

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

#7112 — Re: The real and fair DIce of Solomon?

On 12/12/2016 6:42 AM, K Wills (Shill #3) wrote:
> Make your own, if you don't trust what others have made
> available.

Could you recommend an expert in 100% true random numbers, that even God 
wanna play with that fair and square dice? :)

>      With your paranoia, why do you even use computers?
>

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

#7095

On 11/12/2016 9:33 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> It's easy to devise images which don't compress well when
> frequency-transformed. The classic case is printed text. JPEG encoding
> it often destroys the quality.

Fonts could also cheat like Fourier Transform. So could be optical 
character recognition. All digital methods have flaws?

> But that's a known limitation of the method. Cars are good for
> transporting people. If you want to transport large amounts of goods,
> you can often do it in a car at a pinch - fold the seats down, add
> a roofrack, make several runs. But it's far easier to get a van.
> Similarly, we can compress text much better than with JPEG.

Most random-number generation methods in the market is always not a 100% 
replica of real randomness, Your Honor? :)

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

#7100

On 12/12/2016 12:36 AM, chwilozof wrote:
> 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? :)

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

#7103

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

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

#7104

On 11.12.2016 13:56, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> How to determine whether a random number generator is fake?

Test it.
Then test it for stronger p-value...

https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/dieharder.php
The documentation is inside the archive, you have to compile
it using TeX.

http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/batteries_stats_test.html


> How to determine whether a random number generator is cheating?

How RG can cheat? You mean generated numbers are biased?
Great, it is quite easy to test!
;-)

You mean that it is not real random number generator,
but PRNG?
Yes, probably is ;-)
The real RNG use 'entrophy form OS' (slow) or special CPU
instruction (many people thint they aren't the best).

If you use it for cryptography, you need use real one.
You also need do read... a lot.

For other purposes, use real RNG to seed your PRNG,
if you want to be fancy.

> How do you catch bad programming, algorithm designers and
> mathematicians? Use MP3 and JPEG encoding as examples, which involves
> something called Fourier Transform! :)

https://www.ipa.go.jp/files/000011794.pdf
page 27

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-22-rev1a/SP800-22rev1a.pdf 
[the same document I tihnk]

https://www.random.org/analysis/Analysis2005.pdf

And probably this will be helpful
https://www.random.org/analysis/
https://www.random.org/randomness/

bartekltg

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

#7116 — Re: Dice: mechanical vs electrical

On 12/12/2016 9:02 AM, bartekltg wrote:
> On 11.12.2016 13:56, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> How to determine whether a random number generator is fake?
>
> Test it.
> Then test it for stronger p-value...
>
> https://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/General/dieharder.php
> The documentation is inside the archive, you have to compile
> it using TeX.
>
> http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/toolkit/rng/batteries_stats_test.html
>
>
>> How to determine whether a random number generator is cheating?
>
> How RG can cheat? You mean generated numbers are biased?
> Great, it is quite easy to test!
> ;-)
>
> You mean that it is not real random number generator,
> but PRNG?
> Yes, probably is ;-)
> The real RNG use 'entrophy form OS' (slow) or special CPU
> instruction (many people thint they aren't the best).
>
> If you use it for cryptography, you need use real one.
> You also need do read... a lot.
>
> For other purposes, use real RNG to seed your PRNG,
> if you want to be fancy.
>
>> How do you catch bad programming, algorithm designers and
>> mathematicians? Use MP3 and JPEG encoding as examples, which involves
>> something called Fourier Transform! :)
>
> https://www.ipa.go.jp/files/000011794.pdf
> page 27
>
> http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-22-rev1a/SP800-22rev1a.pdf [the
> same document I tihnk]
>
> https://www.random.org/analysis/Analysis2005.pdf
>
> And probably this will be helpful
> https://www.random.org/analysis/
> https://www.random.org/randomness/

Maybe we should forget about true randomness from digital, electronic 
dice. Then stop calling them "random number", not even "digital random 
number"!!!!!  :)

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

#7132 — Re: Dice: mechanical vs electrical

On 12.12.2016 15:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

>
> Maybe we should forget about true randomness from digital, electronic
> dice. Then stop calling them "random number", not even "digital random
> number"!!!!!  :)
>

There is a name for it. Pseudo-random numbers.

We still can talk about true random numbers. Random, that mean
there is no way to predict it. Hardware generators gives numbers
that is random, (unless you are a philosopher and believe in some
strange deterministic QM interpretation ;-)


If you do not believe in CPU's hardware generators, you can buy
a hardware generator that bases on quantum mechanics
(simpler, based on reflection of a photon, and more advance,
essential a laser but pumped by vacuum fluctuation).

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4512v2.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4438v1.pdf

You can download a short sample 1GB) of numbers generated that way.

http://qrng.anu.edu.au/

And we can't forgot about true randomness. OK, games
or even very serious monte carlo simulation works very well
without it, but cryptography _need_ an unpredictable random numbers.

bartekltg

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

#7113 — Re: Fake randomness is still random?

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? :)

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

#7114 — 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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web