Random Number Generation -----> Hardware or Software?

Peter wrote:

>However if you do need random numbers without the pseudo bit then 
>an Intel Motherboard does the job.

Only certain no-longer produced Intel Motherboards. (Only those based 
on the Pentium III or Pentium III Xeon processor with the 810/815/
820/845/850 Chipset AND the optional Intel 82802 Firmware Hub.)

See [ ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29065804.pdf ].
(See section 4.10 on page 28)

>http://www.lightstraw.co.uk/gpo/posb/ernie4.html

ERNIE 4 isn't an Intel Motherboard. It's a specialized device that 
uses an Intel 82802. 

-- 
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>

Nick Maclaren wrote:

>1) There is a universal test that will distinguish all pseudo-random
>generators from true ones.

Evidence, please.

>And exactly why should a pseudo-random generator be restricted to a
>bounded state space?  Why shouldn't it increase its workspace as time
>goes on?  Sorry, you aren't being imaginative enough.

Because the universe is finite, and thus the PRNG cannot increase 
its workspace without bounds.  Sorry, you are being too imaginative.

-- 
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

>In a 'programming language' random numbers are generated in software.  By
>definition.

Wrong.  Most Linux programming languages use the output of /dev/random
or /dev/urandom to seed the language's RNG, and /dev/(u)random gets
random bits from physical sources.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

>> ...the standard tests for pseudo-random generators.
>
>Yes, and they fail them.  Have to.  They _do_ repeat, so there
>is at minimum 1 periodic frequency.

No, they do NOT "have to."  The period can be much longer than the 
age of the universe.

Bob Niland wrote:

>Do many algorithmic rngs ever have two adjacent generated
>raw numbers be identical?

Happens all the time[1] when using RC4 as a PRNG.



[1] (Roughly as often as it happens when using dice or coin flips...)

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

>The main claim to fame of a computer is that it
>is deterministic, unlike those unpredictable humans.

Wrong again.

Most PCs are *not* deterministic. The turbulance of the air inside
the hard drive causes variations in access time, for example.
Modern operating systems take these variations and apply a strong
cryptographic hash to generate nondeterministic unpredictable
numbers.

>It is not only feasible, it is dead-nuts easy to determine that 
>a black-box is outputting pseudo-random data.  Map the PRNG output
>on a CRT and you will soon see pattern evolving on the screen.

If you had actually tried this on a cryptograpic PRNG you would
already know that it won't work.

>Use the last digit to increment/decrement a line sweeping across
>the screen: the last digit will have a repeat to it that is much
>shorter than the repeat of the whole generator and the line
>will not slowly go up or down, it will _always_ stay around '0'.
>Count the frequency of same value strings (# of 1's, 11's, 111's...
>0's, 00's, 000s), the numbers will be just _too_ perfect.

If you had actually tried this on a cryptograpic PRNG you would
already know that it won't work.

I strongly suggest that you do some research before expressing 
any further wrong information.

In article <112ja4kec5qok5e@corp.supernews.com>,
Guy Macon  <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>>1) There is a universal test that will distinguish all pseudo-random
>>generators from true ones.
>
>Evidence, please.

No problem.  Enroll on a serious statistics course, and all will be
revealed.  I do not, of course, mean Remedial Statistics for the
Mathematically Impaired.

>>And exactly why should a pseudo-random generator be restricted to a
>>bounded state space?  Why shouldn't it increase its workspace as time
>>goes on?  Sorry, you aren't being imaginative enough.
>
>Because the universe is finite, and thus the PRNG cannot increase 
>its workspace without bounds.  Sorry, you are being too imaginative.

You clearly haven't looked at the published universal tests.  All
of them need an unbounded state space.  Oh, sorry, I forgot that you
haven't been on the statistics course yet.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>Guy Macon  <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>>Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>
>>>1) There is a universal test that will distinguish all pseudo-random
>>>generators from true ones.
>>
>>Evidence, please.
>
>No problem.  Enroll on a serious statistics course, and all will be
>revealed.  I do not, of course, mean Remedial Statistics for the
>Mathematically Impaired.

Riiiight.  The best cryptography experts in the world say that a
cryptographically strong PRNG is indistinguishable from random
data, the best known software for identifying bias (DIEHARD) 
cannot find bias in cryptographically strong PRNGs, yet I am 
supposed to believe that this unnamed method is taught in
statistics courses.  Suuuure it is.

Look here for evidence that you are wrong:
http://www.google.com/search?q=prng+%22indistinguishable+from+random%22

>>>And exactly why should a pseudo-random generator be restricted to a
>>>bounded state space?  Why shouldn't it increase its workspace as time
>>>goes on?  Sorry, you aren't being imaginative enough.
>>
>>Because the universe is finite, and thus the PRNG cannot increase 
>>its workspace without bounds.  Sorry, you are being too imaginative.
>
>You clearly haven't looked at the published universal tests.  All
>of them need an unbounded state space.

And this allows an unbounded state space to fit inside a bounded 
universe - how?

> 
> Because the universe is finite, and thus the PRNG cannot increase
> its workspace without bounds.  Sorry, you are being too imaginative.
> 

The boundedness of the universe is not a settled question.

Regards
Emil

Emil Briggs wrote:
>>Because the universe is finite, and thus the PRNG cannot increase
>>its workspace without bounds.  Sorry, you are being too imaginative.
>> 
> The boundedness of the universe is not a settled question.

True, and anyway it's kind of irrelevant, isn't it?  The set of positive 
integers, for example, is an infinite set whether or not the universe is 
  infinite.

Ed