Re: Better Randomness ? !

From	Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com>
References	(3 earlier) <n0om2e$ok6$1@dont-email.me> <chine.bleu-9FF068.13532027102015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> <n0or5i$btl$1@dont-email.me> <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.27{10.41P.Seattle.2015}> <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com>
Subject	Re: Better Randomness ? !
Message-ID	<edf94e286ab256dce6ced654ddf07a22@dizum.com> (permalink)
Date	2015-10-29 19:38 +0100
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.computer.security, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.privacy.anon-server
Organization	dizum.com - The Internet Problem Provider

Cross-posted to 5 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com>
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
>
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
> >Professor William_Unruh wrote:
> >> a program to efficiently find the minimum of an arbitrary function
> >> is incredibly powerful.
> >>
> >> Now the question of course is whether or not the DWave system can
> >> actually find such minima faster than a classical computer can.
> >>
> >> That is still somewhat up in the air.
> >> And whether their computer actually uses quantum mechanics
> >> in the process (rather than thermal monti-carlo say).
>
> >Better Randomness ? ! I don't think so.
>
> >Seriously, _How_ could thermo/quantum randomness be
> >better than what I've got, on my i7_4790s/Windows_8 PC ? !
> >How ? !
>
> Any computer algorithm is just pseudorandomness, "ignorance" as you put
> it.  Dig deep enough into the algorithm and you can _predict_ the next
> value, although doing so can be extremely difficult.

Seymour Cray and DEC Alpha designers managed it, AMD too.  
Intel, well not so much.

> On the other hand, something based on truly random events, such as
> radioactive decay, is, well, truly random, if implemented properly.

There is nothing random about radioactive decay.

> <snip crap>

Thread

Better Randomness ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-27 22:41 -0700
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2015-10-27 22:46 -0700
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 06:50 +0000
    Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:34 +0000
    Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:48 -0400
      Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 18:53 +0000
        Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 14:08 -0700
          Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 22:36 +0000
            Re: The pseudo_random array is fully known, 100.0000% predictable. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 -0800
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 14:33 +0000
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-28 09:36 -0500
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:56 -0400
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 10:46 -0400
    QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 08:28 -0700
      Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-10-28 11:48 -0400
        RDRAND has numerous problems. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:35 -0700
      Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 16:17 +0000
        QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-10-28 09:50 -0700
        Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 17:44 +0000
          Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-10-28 18:01 +0000
            Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness. Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-28 18:39 +0000
    Re: Better Randomness ? ! Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-10-29 19:38 +0100
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-10-29 19:14 +0000
        Re: Better Randomness ? ! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-29 13:10 -0700
      Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-29 21:36 +0000
        Re: Better Randomness ? ! noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 17:24 -0700
          Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 21:55 -0400
            Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:12 +0000
            Re: Better Randomness ? ! Fabian Russell <root@localhost.localdomain> - 2015-10-30 02:18 +0000
  Re: Better Randomness ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:45 -0400

csiph-web