Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more "truly" random than any other PRNG.
If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").
On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:50:19 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" ><toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more >"truly" random than any other PRNG.
If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").
Or you could use real dice:
http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic
One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering. Be sure to watch the
video.
On 11/1/2018 00:52, Robert Wessel wrote:
If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
"truly" random than any other PRNG.
If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").
We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box
and the surface? :)
Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the physical motion of dice.
IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.
Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
On 11/1/2018 00:59, Robert Wessel wrote:
Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the
physical motion of dice.
IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.
So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and >computers?
There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.
On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a
source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.
Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough?
(I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :)
On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a
source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.
Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough?
(I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :)
Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them.
A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness
into it.
QM (in its modern form) is considered a massively
solid theory, backed by masses of
evidence[... It] is also incomplete, and in conflict
with relativity's understanding of gravity [...].
Which is why the search for the so-called
"Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing...
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on >somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> writes:
Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on >>somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
When I was at SGI, a couple of colleagues published a paper
on using a Lava Lamp as a source of randomness in a random
number generator.
On 11/1/2018 01:38, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them.
A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness
into it.
Could I say the same to quantum mechanics and its implementations? :)
On 10/01/18 17:32, Robert Wessel wrote:
<snip>
QM (in its modern form) is considered a massively
solid theory, backed by masses of
evidence[... It] is also incomplete, and in conflict
with relativity's understanding of gravity [...].
Which is why the search for the so-called
"Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing...
I suppose it's almost too obvious to mention, especially as there are so
many great minds involved in the search --- but has anyone looked behind
the settee?
Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
On 11/1/2018 00:55, Robert Wessel wrote:
Or you could use real dice:
http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic
One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering. Be sure to watch the
video.
Could you shrink the whole thing into the size of a capacitor, and make
it accessible by electronics? :)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 295 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:45:42 |
| Calls: | 6,640 |
| Files: | 12,188 |
| Messages: | 5,325,233 |