Re: non-pseudo random number generators
From: Mitch Harris (harrisq_at_tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de)
Date: 07/14/04
- Next message: Bryan Olson: "The Futility of Arguing with Bricks; was: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- In reply to: Acid Pooh: "Re: non-pseudo random number generators"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:51:53 +0200
Acid Pooh wrote:
> Mitch Harris <harrisq@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote in message news:<2lhjnpFc3ev5U1@uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>To me there seems to be more control over the randomness in
>>a pseudo random generator.
>
> Heh, this is kind of funny.
>
> The whole point is that you're *not* supposed to be able to control
> it. :-)
Er.. control over the -design- of the generator. With the
pseudo RNG, you get to choose the algorithm and any
parameters, and you get to -prove- the randomness of #'s
generated by that algorithm (I realize this is difficult).
With the physical device, you can use experimental data to
help pick a physical model that seems to be random.
As to outside "control" over the generation, if all it takes
is the proposed single uncomplicated source of radiation,
then I still lean towards the algorithmic generator.
-- Mitch Harris (remove q to reply)
- Next message: Bryan Olson: "The Futility of Arguing with Bricks; was: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: limitation to induction on finite bounds"
- In reply to: Acid Pooh: "Re: non-pseudo random number generators"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
