Re: Better Randomness ? !

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy, sci.physics, alt.computer.security, comp.sys.mac.system, alt.hacker, alt.privacy.anon-server
Subject	Re: Better Randomness ? !
Date	2015-10-28 14:33 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <Jeff-Relf.Me@Oct.27{0.50P.Seattle.2015}> <n0om2e$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}>

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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.

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

<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