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

Groups > sci.physics > #528666 > unrolled thread

Better Randomness ? !

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#528758 — Re: QueryPerformanceCounter() -- Better Randomness.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:01:14 +0000, Michael Moroney wrote:

> 
> The world of cryptography and related mathematics is much more 
> sophisticated than that.
> 

You wish.  Fscking idiot.


>
> Someone from the NSA could explain it to you
> 

The NSA is only a projection of your non-existent intelligence.
Fscking idiot.



>
> Or Mossad or MI6?
>

Standard encryption, if effected properly, can completely cripple 
these assholes and they know it.

Fscking idiot.

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

#528940

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>

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

#528942

In article <edf94e286ab256dce6ced654ddf07a22@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com>
>moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>> 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.

In terms of when an individual atom might decay there is. That is
completely random. All you know is that the probability that it will
decay in the next time-period of length equal to its half-life is just
0.5.

-- 
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in 
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in 
someone else's pocket.

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

#528949

On 10/29/15, 12:14 PM, in article
291020151914153294%timstreater@greenbee.net, "Tim Streater"
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <edf94e286ab256dce6ced654ddf07a22@dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio
> <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <n0qmbc$8pt$1@pcls7.std.com>
>> moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> In terms of when an individual atom might decay there is. That is
> completely random.

Well, at least as far as we know. :)

> All you know is that the probability that it will
> decay in the next time-period of length equal to its half-life is just
> 0.5.



-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

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

#528964

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 19:38:09 +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> 
> There is nothing random about radioactive decay.
> 

Eat shit and die, ignoramus idiot motherfscker.

Want radioactive random?  Get it here:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits

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

#529020

excretum deletum

> https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits

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

#529050

On 10/29/2015 08:24 PM, noTthaTguY wrote:
> excretum deletum
>
>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits

So your idea is that if a process is unknown that makes it truly random? 
What if I'm dumb and don't know how a pseudorandom shift register works? 
Does that make it random to me? Apparently.

I suppose randomness where the mechanism is unknown like radioactive 
decay or cosmic noise is "better" in the sense that if nobody else knows 
the mechanism producing the numbers it makes your code harder to break, 
but it doesn't necessarily make the key more random.

Anyway, while we are on th subject, and interesting question is how to 
generate reasonably "random" numberstrings to use for encryption at a 
rapid rate. Consider if you will the "unbreakable" one time pad method 
using modern technology. It can be seen that such generates another 
question: How can one generate decently random number strings at a rate 
fast enough to say record a blu-ray disk filled with random digits at 
typical recording speeds? Not such a simple problem while maintaining a 
reasonable randomness in the string.

-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#529058

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:55:30 -0400, benj wrote:

> How can one generate decently random number strings at a rate 
> fast enough to say record a blu-ray disk filled with random digits at 
> typical recording speeds? 
>

The solution to this would be quite trivial.  Just use any decent PRNG
(that's pseudo-random number generator -- but don't let the name fool you)
to calculate the random byte stream simultaneously with the blu-ray stream.
The PRNG could output much faster than current optical disk I/O.


Do PRNG's work?

Don't ask a scientist.  Don't ask a mathematician.  Rather ask a gambler.
The huge gambling industry, involving TRILLIONS of dollars annually,
relies entirely on PRNGs -- and those bloodsuckers and money grubbers
aren't going to deploy a faulty technology with that much cash at stake.

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

#529061

On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:55:30 -0400, benj wrote:

> 
> So your idea is that if a process is unknown that makes it truly random? 
> What if I'm dumb and don't know how a pseudorandom shift register works? 
> Does that make it random to me? Apparently.
> 

No, no, no.

You don't have to know how it works.  The only thing that matters is
the statistical properties of the output.  If the stats say random then
the goddamned thing is random.  Case closed.

A horde of monkeys banging on typewriters has been proposed as a generator
randomness.  If the monkeys produce output that is statistically random
then no power or authority, even God, can claim otherwise.

See, for example:

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

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

#529101

On 10/28/2015 01:41 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> 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 ? !
>
> I used genetic algorithms back in 1992;
> it's no big deal, nothing new.
>
> "Randomness" is just ignorance, nothing more.
> Intrinsically, the (4D) timescape is static, immutable.
> "Life" is virtual, not real.
>
> We're robots, programmed to want food, water, air, etc.
>
> Like the sun, stars and everything else...
> we consume "exergy" (energy that can do work);
> i.e. we ratchet entropy.

There you go folks!

"Randomness" is just ignorance!

That means that to Rolf all life is random!



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web