Sonny
Well-Known Member
I prefer to keep count in binary.![]()
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't.
-Sonny-
I prefer to keep count in binary.![]()
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't.
-Sonny-
Quite right, an RNG is not truly random, but StandardDeviant
From his observation, hinted that his practice software RNG is predictable.
I wonder which software it is.
To not buy.
Computer guys rarely bother with the word pseudo-random. Since nothing is random, there is no point in writing the extra two syllables.
You can't prove nothing is random. I realize the RNG's used in most software is merely pseudorandom, but there are true RNG's out there that are uncertainly based, and there's a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can prove their outputs are not random.
I said computer guys, not quantum physicists or theologians.![]()
You can't prove nothing is random.
The point of randomness is that it eventually becomes non-random because it repeats itself at some point. Rngs repeat themselves at some point what that point is, is not known we know that it exists.
The point of randomness is that it eventually becomes non-random because it repeats itself at some point. Rngs repeat themselves at some point what that point is, is not known we know that it exists.
There are ways to make "truly" random RNG's for computers (using external sources of noise)....
That is debatable. But then we get into quantum physics and theology again.![]()
I remember back in the day when i was still a youngling in a statistical thermodynamics class, the professor asked one student to "randomly" chose 6 numbers, and the he asked why he chose those numbers, because supposedly he had a revelation that those numbers were the winning lottery numbers.![]()
Would have been funny if he had won the lottery.
One of the outside sources that has been used is radioactive decay. But, one of the things that is simulated is radioactive decay. Kind of biased to use as a source of "randomness" the very thing you are simulating.
It is called a "self-consistent" method:laugh:
It is in fact a method used in quantum mechanics i kid you not
There's even a range of x86-compatible processors available with a built-in RNG -There are ways to make "truly" random RNG's for computers (using external sources of noise), but for sims this is way overkill.
There's even a range of x86-compatible processors available with a built-in RNG -
http://www.via.com.tw/en/initiatives/padlock/hardware.jsp
You mean for simulation? That's not the intended market. Whether it is actually serves a useful purpose in the area of encryption, as the advertising blurb would have us believe, I don't know.I looked at this a few years back. Far too slow. As well as unnecessary.
Isn't that true of all RNGs at some level?It might also be noted that the blurb assumes that you accept the randomness inherent in quantum mechanics. According to a recent article, I think Einstein won the latest battle on views of the Universe.![]()
I may be misremembering, but I think I read about a method of achieving the same sort of thing as the VIA processors using a standard processor in a very non-standard way. Something about executing a series of instructions that makes no computational sense, but leaves a particular register (or i/o port, or something) in an undefined state for a period of time.