Re: Fake randomness is still random?

From	"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Fake randomness is still random?
Date	2016-12-12 14:49 -0600
Message-ID	<eb8gpsFc5ojU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(2 earlier) <o2mbb3$c16$3@dont-email.me> <o2mjvn$r6p$1@pcls7.std.com> <o2mkhm$dud$1@news.albasani.net> <eb84mfF95iaU1@mid.individual.net> <582c1c2b-16cc-479c-8662-9e9b452c84b0@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

<supercat@casperkitty.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 12, 2016 at 11:22:31 AM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
>> Well, we have had about 15 billion years to predict the snow pattern on 
>> the
>> old B&W TVs, without any success so far.
>
> For some purposes, a very important part of randomness is that it not
> be manipulable.  While it may not be possible to predict the snow pattern
> that would be displayed a vintage television tuned to channel 8 in an
> area hundreds of miles away from any transmitter that is using that
> channel, someone who knew that the snow pattern on such a television
> was being used as a source of randomness could very easily influence
> the pattern and then "predict" what "random" numbers would be chosen.

I wasn't proposing an implementation, I was using it as a device that many 
people could relate to for illustrative purposes..  The snow is a 
manifestation of the 4 K radiation resulting from the alleged "big bang". 
Not to be contused with a TV show of the same name.  One can get the same 
result from a resistor at room temperature followed by an amplifier.  One 
can digitize the result and then apply von Neuman "whitening".  Problem 
solved. Not the best solution but *a* solution.

Thread

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? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 05:33 -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? "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? 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 00:46 +0800
    Re: Fake random numbers? Bad programmers? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-11 10:45 -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? 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: Fake randomness is still random? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 11:22 -0600
          Re: Fake randomness is still random? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-12 11:17 -0800
            Re: Fake randomness is still random? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-12-12 14:49 -0600
              Re: Fake randomness is still random? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 13:33 -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

csiph-web