Can a computer generate a truly random number?

that's a philosophical question that can't be answered meaningfully, but practically, some things are random

why? you don't really need it anyway. you'd know the answer if you needed it.

Attached: 1529294197463.jpg (750x930, 92K)

rawr ecks dee

There are no generators based someway on analogic noise? Sensitive DAC like Delta sigma ones can sample a dynamic of 120 dB this mean a 1e12 ratio ( something like 120 bits). So if you can have a signal including some quantum noise you can extract some pure random bits with parity for example. With an 1bit Delta sigma wich encode signals as 3MHz pwm you can reasonably get some kb/s of good randomness
It's maybe what's done with thermal noise based generators

nothing is truly random, everything has been set in place since the start of the universe, we are just the product of pure physics, as is everything we think we know

Attached: 4761.png (1000x866, 364K)

our universe is a simulation
nothing we can generate here can be truly random

Attached: 1365568802746.jpg (158x152, 14K)

Yes and no, if in doubt, use dice. The analog way of doing things may be anachronistic but there is a reason it has been around for so long.

give me sauce of the pic at the back

Thanks Max Plank for being so wrong

Buy some lava lamps and get coding user
popularmechanics.com/technology/security/news/a28921/lava-lamp-security-cloudflare/

Attached: lava.png (1272x746, 554K)

Every single action every single electron moving in seemingly hapazard way according to the probablity function, every sorce of so called noise can all be interpolated from the singularity which led to big bang. Not since we do not have any relevant information about the singularity so we lack the SEED for the different functions of universe and so we believe in random numbers like those fools believe in make believe all mighty who will lead their souls to space vegas after they die.

When you get right down to it, it's all analogue. However we're better off just transistor amplifying it into bits and decorrelating the bits than trying to sample it with a fancy DAC, because we don't need kb/s of quite good entropy; just 256 bits of really fucking good entropy. A CSPRNG can safely take it from there, providing it's well-designed.

That last bit is an interesting nit, of course, and opens up all kinds of possibilities - from the legendarily obvious NSA-backdoored Dual_EC_DRBG (which, by the way, they actually used themselves) to wildly experimental attacks like zeroing out some of the leading bits in the AES state in Intel RDRAND to yield an undetectable small-subgroup attack (well, undetectable except somebody's decapped your chip and is running it under LN2 for no more than a week, so quite obvious actually).

Another avenue of attack is how you get from bits to numbers, particularly in primes - see the backdoor in the Infineon RSALib prime generator, discovered by Nemec and Sýs in 2017 (branded as "ROCA", Return Of the Coppersmith Attack).

Pure physics describes many unpredictable events.

This kind of woolly thinking leads people to YOLO crypto bullshit like mt_srand(microtime())

While that kind of crap kept me in a job for many years, that makes me hit the desk.

Sure it's silly, but sure, it works (on top of RDRAND as well). God bless you, Nick Sullivan.

> not posting tom scott
youtube.com/watch?v=1cUUfMeOijg

Attached: tumblr_nxzpi67vuG1ufh7yno1_500.gif (500x257, 314K)

from a philosophical standpoint, are they truly unpredictable if they can be described with physics?

There is the actual question and then there is the practical question. Can you generate a 256 bit ECDSA key with a computer using a process which makes it impossible for the best equipped attacker to try to arrive at the same key? Absolutely.

Yes, if we ignore quantum physics.

no
now get a job

>Is it TRULY random?
Bell's experiment proves that either it is, or that the universe is hyper-deterministic in such a way as to intentionally make experiments tell you it's random when it's not, because God is an asshole. My money's on random.

>Can a computer generate a truly random number?
of course not. but it can generate a stream of numbers that exhibit the same properties as a stream of truley random numbers.

randomness doesn't exist

sampling is not generating

the next digit of an irrational number. if the universe was a simulation it would have to feed us the next 'random' digit

Yes, by measuring some particular properties of a stream of photons or electrons you'll have a true RNG (unless an attacker is controlling the stream)

the drones that regurgitate this mindless drivel without any sort of meaningful proof are the worst, not very different from the average normie

One foolproof way to get great entropy is to combine bits of lesser quality entropy , you can except that some proportion of bits from the base stream to be truly random, even if it's only a small proportion . Simply by using parity you can someway concentrate this entropy, you can also use hash functions for this. It's just like having some random bits among predictible ones, you just have to underestimate this proportion

>our universe is a simulation
>nothing we can generate here can be truly random
You need to stop stating your opinion as if it was fact.

>the drones that regurgitate this mindless drivel without any sort of meaningful proof are the worst, not very different from the average normie
aka Jow Forums in 2018

what do u mean bro i watched the matrix shit was tight

the answer to this might terrify you

Attached: spooky quantum mechanics.jpg (460x309, 18K)

>our universe is a simulation
>nothing we can generate here can be truly random
Randomness can be useful even in simulations, see Monte Carlo algorithms, it's sometimes even more precise than deterministic algorithm for the same processing power

What is random? Something that cannot be predicted. What does it mean to be predictable? To be able to have the knowledge of an outcome before it occurs. So there are really three concepts required in order to think clearly about randomness: knowledge of a thing, the thing itself and a space in which things occur sequentially.

Now we can say, for something to be truly random, one of these things must fail - it must fail with regards to a) knowledge/observation/measurement, b) or it must fail with respect to the thing itself being non-random, c) or it must fail with respect to the impossibility of its existence.

c) is, by our assumption that everything that exists is possible, impossible.

For a), a knowledge-based randomness would occur with respect to our perception of randomness, which may suggest randomness of the underlying phenomena, but not guarantee it. It occurs when there is something inherent in the process of evaluating events in the world preventing us from gaining knowledge about an outcome, making it impossible for us to be certain about the outcome. Uncertainty principle is an example. These are fundamental limits of knowledge that seem to suggest that the more certain we are of some things, the less certain we can be after a certain point.

For b), consider something truly random was occurring. How would one verify that it was random? Say you build a machine which takes the entire universe into itself as data, and simulates the next time slice of the universe based on that data. Then it compares it's simulation to the real world. Any difference between what it simulated and what is real would be considered "random". There are two questions I don't know the answer to:

1) "When the machine is wrong, could one make a change in the machine's laws such that it's outcome would match the real world?"
2) "Could one always do that?"

Wait... You expected Jow Forums to be a tech support?

Randomness comes mainly in quantum decoherence, before it's just spooky mixed States, non locality and incertitude principle. You have to go beyond both particle and wave duality with objects existing in several states as once.

This user gets it.
Nothing is truly random.

this is a very niggerlicious thread

Machine dependent random number generator or an independent random number generator? Uniform or no uniform distribution? Linear congruent is models are ok but they need to be seeded.
Short answer? No.

When we create “random” rng’s they’re not truly random. No matter the size, they eventually repeat. Using the function rand() is absolute shit tier. It’s using hardware to generate random numbers, thus, it’s machine dependent and can EASILY be cracked. srand() same thing except it’s seeded. Then it comes down to length. What range do you want? Uniform or nonuniform distribution?

We don’t have random numbers but we can simulate them. There’s been attempts at using cosmic background radiation to generate random numbers but is that actually random?

N=[a*N+c]modM
• M = 2^b; b=number of bits in a word
• Conditions for the sequence of max length:
c = odd integer ≈ 0.211*M a-1 must be multiple of 4
• If the random sequence has the max length each value occurs only once and the distribution is uniform
• Example:N=(5*N+3)mod8
N = 0, 3, 2, 5, 4, 7, 6, 1, 0,...

It’s predictable. Then it comes down to, some applications need the same sequence of random number generation (benchmarks to be fair). Other applications, such as simulating queues need different sequences of random number generation.

“Shuffler” is decent tier:
Fill an array of 100-200 components with (arbitrarily distributed) random numbers
• Randomly (uniformly) select a number from the array and deliver to the user
• Restore the array: generate a new random number and replace the number that was delivered to the user

nine
nine..
nine
nine
nine.
nine
nine
nine
nine
nine
nine
nine
nine

Nothin personnell kid, just posting some random numbers

>2013

I don't know what it means, I just found out about this website through tumblr

>like those fools believe in make believe all mighty who will lead their souls to space vegas after they die.

Hindu philosophy is best pham. Pic related used to say, "When I am not, God is not"...

Although I do not believe in random events, I still believe that Shiva, the pure consciousness has influence over the universe.

In Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said:
"When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

So it is my belief, through self realisation ("enlightenment/yoga") one can merge with the pure subject (father) and can rule over the creation (universe)..

Attached: ottXPbOX_400x400.jpg (400x400, 28K)

Can you ?

no, truly random number can't exist

>Can you ?
not OP, but probably not... I catch myself spitting out nubmers which add to 9, 6, 3 (45, 36, 24, 21) and so forth when playing lotto...

So I stopped playing, since I can't even think of truly random numbers.

Gods are fake.
Although satanism can help you having better quality of life.

Attached: tumblr_o8kxzskZ5v1v43b53o1_500.jpg (500x500, 25K)

Can the Universe?

Attached: s-30348-dont-look-at-her-shes-not-worth-your-time-look-into-my-eyes-breasts-are-temporary-but-libert (300x418, 14K)

technically humans can't generate a truly random number either

Can a human generate a truly random number?

>Can a computer generate a truly random number?
can a human?
checkmate atheists

Can a universe?
you're playing checkers while I was playing chess all the time. :^)

A turning machine cannot. Depending on the underlying reality of physics, actual computers absolutely can generate truly random numbers. They just use components which exploit physics that produce randomness (half-silvered mirror, lower bits of sensor measurements, etc) along with a "debiasing" algorithm, which takes a random but biased stream of 1s and 0s and outputs a uniformly random stream of 1s and 0s. The simplest debiasing algorithm is by Von Neumann: group the input stream into paira of bits. If the input is 01, output 0. If the input is 10, output 1. Otherwise ignore the input pair. As long as the samples are independent, this very simple practical algorithm can turn a biased coin into a fair one.

brownian motion

>but the Republic is forever
Except it wasn't, it first turned into an empire and then fell altogether.

By the mathematical definition of 'random' it can't. Even if it takes a seed value from something that is truly random, the number it generates from that value is not random at all.

Attached: lava-lamps.jpg (2048x1152, 329K)

Can mathematics generate random number?
Checkmate, jew

an easier way is with a photomultiplier tube or overdriven vacuum tube

Sure it can.
>Suppose I have some random integer called x.
There it is.

>what is Quantum mechanics

Computer only has so many bits, so it can only produce a finite amount of numbers, aka it cannot generate a truly random number, you can garuntee the numbers range regardless of who you have write the program.

learn some QM

Prove it's random.
You can't just make up things.

True randomness is impossible but a value can be generated with conditions that are unlikely to happen again during the lifespan of the universe.

Attached: consider.jpg (508x412, 31K)

>t. technologically illiterate boomer

define random

> Let X be random

there it is, the proof

>that 20yo boomer who thinks xhe's smart but has never heard of quantum random number generators

Read Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

Whilo it can be described with physics in a perfect system lava lamps are very far from uniform. For example it can not be assumed what the exact votalage and apperage will be applied to the heating element, how good the heating element is, the exact composition of the lava lamp chemical stuff (don't know what it is), etc, etc. Therefore, while a statistical analysis of the state might be accurate over time and in general at any single point in time the lava lamp may or may not be in that position. There are also a lot of lamps which makes this much more likely. Finally as those are all in a lobby the camera also picks up all kinds of other things to add to entropy. Peolp walking past, custodial staff, etc. It is a very good source of entropy all things considered.

cheapest way to get random numbers is to buy rtl-sdr dongle and run rtl_entropy with rngd.

openssl is backdoored up the wazoo so you'll have to recompile and patch it to actually use /dev/random directly and not some fake xyz generator.

also add nordrand to your kernel boot config.

>three letter agencies hated this man

Can human breathe underwater?
>Yes, using scuba gear

Attached: random_number.png (400x144, 7K)

>xhe
return to reddit

>tard
return to Jow Forums

just because we haven't figured out how QM works doesn't mean it's random, this is the same shit as how we used to think weather is random before meteorology.

If randomness is a human condition then any number a computer generates could be considered random if a human was not expecting or could not predict that number?

>that 68 year old boomer who thinks that quantum physics is random

Attached: 1526965236884.jpg (250x229, 19K)

>t. Retard

Depends how you define random.

This is THE answer, the rest of the thread is now redundant. Everybody go.

QRBG
motherfucker