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

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote

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

I think that just about ties it up for me.

Guy, baby, put me in your kill file and lead a happier life.

-- 
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix  . netcom . com

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message
news:qfnWd.2819$603.337@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Q: Is a Pseudo-Random Number Generator's output functionally
>    equivalent to a random sequence?
>
> A: PRNG:   The next number in the sequence is knowable with sufficient
>            knowledge.  Not being able to predict the number is due to
>            ignorance and has nothing to do with 'random'.
>
>    Random: No amount of knowledge will allow prediction of the
>            next number.
>
But your answer is not the answer to your question.  You claim to be an
engineer.  The correct answer is that PRNG might be functionally
equivilent to a "real" random sequence, depending on the application.
For example "monte-carlo simulation" or even an on line casino.  In some
cases the fact that you could predict the sequence is unimportant, and
in others you have no way of finding out enough information in a short
enough time.  And of course in some applications it really is important
that the sequence be truly random and hence unpredictable no matter
what.

So if you are going to set up strawmen, at least knock them down
properly.

del cecchi

CBFalconer wrote:

> The result will eventually require confirmation, because the ECC
> memory cannot correct multiple bit errors, in fact it cannot even
> detect all 3 bit errors.  In case someone wants to do this in
> parallel, rather than after I publish the end result, suitable C
> code follows:
> 
>    i = 0; largestprime = 0;
>    while (i >= largestprime) {
>       if (i && prime(i)) largestprime = i;
>       printf("0x%x\n", i);
>       if (!++i) break;
>    }
> 
> and there are plenty of published methods of evaluating prime(i).

I have a similar experiment running:

for (i=POS_INFINITY; !prime(i); i--);

As you can see, it's a more efficient algorithm since it starts at 
positive infinity and decrements.  However, after running for a few 
weeks, it's still initializing i.  If it ever finishes, I'm probably 
really going to regret not adding a print statement.

Ed

"del cecchi" <dcecchi.nojunk@att.net> wrote
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message
> > Q: Is a Pseudo-Random Number Generator's output functionally
> >    equivalent to a random sequence?
> >
> > A: PRNG:   The next number in the sequence is knowable with sufficient
> >            knowledge.  Not being able to predict the number is due to
> >            ignorance and has nothing to do with 'random'.
> >
> >    Random: No amount of knowledge will allow prediction of the
>            next number.

> But your answer is not the answer to your question.
To me it is.  If you don't like it, well what do I care ...

> You claim to be an engineer.
Implying what?  Is this sort of remark relevant?

This is the end of this conversation.

-- 
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix  . netcom . com

> Q: Is a Pseudo-Random Number Generator's output functionally
>   equivalent to a random sequence?
>
> A: PRNG:   The next number in the sequence is knowable with sufficient
>           knowledge.  Not being able to predict the number is due to
>           ignorance and has nothing to do with 'random'.
>
>   Random: No amount of knowledge will allow prediction of the
>           next number.
>
> -- 

Doesn't this show that the set of prime numbers is the set of random numbers 
?

Robert Finch wrote:
> 
>> Q: Is a Pseudo-Random Number Generator's output functionally
>>   equivalent to a random sequence?
>>
>> A: PRNG:  The next number in the sequence is knowable with sufficient
>>           knowledge.  Not being able to predict the number is due to
>>           ignorance and has nothing to do with 'random'.
>>
>>   Random: No amount of knowledge will allow prediction of the
>>           next number.
> 
> Doesn't this show that the set of prime numbers is the set of random
> numbers ?

My abilities are such that, for any set of truly random numbers, of
any length whatsoever, I can predict whether or not each value is
prime with significantly better than 50% accuracy.

-- 
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
 the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on 
 "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the 
 "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

"CBFalconer" <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:422A4665.B2F47CEA@yahoo.com...
> Robert Finch wrote:
>>
>>> Q: Is a Pseudo-Random Number Generator's output functionally
>>>   equivalent to a random sequence?
>>>
>>> A: PRNG:  The next number in the sequence is knowable with sufficient
>>>           knowledge.  Not being able to predict the number is due to
>>>           ignorance and has nothing to do with 'random'.
>>>
>>>   Random: No amount of knowledge will allow prediction of the
>>>           next number.
>>
>> Doesn't this show that the set of prime numbers is the set of random
>> numbers ?
>
> My abilities are such that, for any set of truly random numbers, of
> any length whatsoever, I can predict whether or not each value is
> prime with significantly better than 50% accuracy.

Well, about 1/2 the numbers will be even, and not prime, so if you guess 
that they are all not prime, then you would be significantly better than 50%

-Newman

>
> -- 
> "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
> the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.  Click on
> "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
>
> 

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message
news:efqWd.2538$CW2.455@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "del cecchi" <dcecchi.nojunk@att.net> wrote
> > "Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message
> > > Q: Is a Pseudo-Random Number Generator's output functionally
> > >    equivalent to a random sequence?
> > >
> > > A: PRNG:   The next number in the sequence is knowable with
sufficient
> > >            knowledge.  Not being able to predict the number is due
to
> > >            ignorance and has nothing to do with 'random'.
> > >
> > >    Random: No amount of knowledge will allow prediction of the
> >            next number.
>
> > But your answer is not the answer to your question.
> To me it is.  If you don't like it, well what do I care ...
>
> > You claim to be an engineer.
> Implying what?  Is this sort of remark relevant?
>
> This is the end of this conversation.
>
Fine.  Don't let the virtual door hit you in the virtual behind on the
way out.

The comment was reflecting on your .sig where you claim to be an
engineer.  Then you ignore one of the attributes of engineering, where
the requirements of the problem are considered when formulating the
solution and proceed to dis prn in favor of true random when there are
many applications in which the difference makes no difference.

Are you sure you are not a Mathematician traveling incognito?

del

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
> "Robert Finch" <robfinch@sympatico.ca> wrote
> 
> 
>>The effect of randomness on static systems and the resulting progression of 
>>time is interesting. Momentary randomness provides entropy which allows time 
>>to pass. I wonder if one could build a time machine by varying the amount of 
>>entropy in different regions of space.
> 
> 
> Douglas Adams' "Infinite Improbability Drive"?
> 
> Good point you bring up: does a PRNG/Pi create entropy?
> 
I would think not because the calculation of pi is a deterministic 
algorithm just like a pseudo random number generator. This looks likely 
to be just a Finite Improbability.

You man need to add a Brownian Motion generation.

nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
[snip]
> Thirdly, if you think that a pseudo-random generator has
> no defects, you haven't looked hard enough :-(

This is probably the most significant statement made in this
thread.

It's good to note that nobody has tried to slip proof of
randomness into the converstation.