Re: Fake randomness is still random?

From	root <NoEMail@home.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c, comp.lang.clipper, comp.lang.ada, comp.programming, alt.comp.freeware, alt.conspiracy
Subject	Re: Fake randomness is still random?
Date	2016-12-12 16:51 +0000
Organization	Linux Advocacy
Message-ID	<o2mkhm$dud$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink)
References	<o2jiap$oo0$1@dont-email.me> <o2lhen$o5i$1@dont-email.me> <o2mbb3$c16$3@dont-email.me> <o2mjvn$r6p$1@pcls7.std.com>

Cross-posted to 6 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>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? :)
>
> In the documentation, pure software "random" number generators are almost
> always described as pseudorandom, not actually random.  For real randomness
> where a pseudorandom sequence isn't good enough, some sort of hardware
> generator is needed.

There can be no "true" random number generator even admitting hardware
assist. Any amount of serial correlation will result in non-randomness.
A source without serial correlation would require infinite bandwidth.

The whole question is irrelevant. For any pseudo-random source,
the question is how long would you have to observe the source
to have some given degree of certainty that the source was
not random or, rather, how non-random the source was.

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