Talk:Random number generator

Could we change the phrase '"true" random number' to "not crypographically secure random number" or something like that? I actually find using the phrase '"true" random number' in the way that is being done (and without explaining that it's one persons personal oppinion of what the definition of "true" random number should be) offensive.

(I'm not allowed to edit pages as i come through tor, or i'd attempt it myself)

There are two other very lengthy articles (with Pseudorandom number generator and Hardware random number generator) on almost the same topic. I think we should merge all three together, and I think this is the ideal place to do it. Alternately, we could make those articles more specific to their topic, and put the more general information here.

--Raul654 11:40, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello. The Pseudorandom number generator and Hardware random number generator articles are pretty long and specialized, so I guess I'd recommend against merging them. I suppose any general discussion could be merged, but certainly not the whole articles. Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 04:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And is there room for a quote on the wikipedia?

"Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." -- John Von Neumann

roan 09:06, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Both of the "see also" articles have that one featured prominently at the top ;) --Raul654 09:37, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If I were to be blind-folded and the calculator was rotated before me. Surely I could generate a random number. And have I?

Whats the point of this?

"Also, when using random numbers, we must take into account whether they include or exclude their upper and lower bounds. Some 0 to 1 RNGs include 0 but exclude 1, while others include both, and yet others exclude both."

The probability of f(x) = A is zero, where A is a finite set of numbers. so theres no difference in the boundaries of the RNG results set.

PS: sorry about te bad english

Right, but e.g. using a 8-digit

electronic calculator (say a BCD device without scientific notation), there are 99 999 999 numbers strictly between 0 and 1, 100 000 000 including one of the bounds, and 100 000 001 including both. And RNG's do differ in this respect!--Niels Ø 10:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Surely this point is too pedantic to be worth mentioning? A computer PRNG does not generate "numbers" but a series of electrical impulses interpreted as numbers. Surely nothing physically realised generates "numbers" which are an abstract concept. How would it even be possible? --Richard Clegg 10:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would too pedantic to discuss this point, but writing the intro so as to not contradict it would be nice. E.g., the second mention of random number generator could be changed into physical random generator - in fact, I'll just try to do that, and see what happens...--Niels Ø 16:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that this only makes the article worse. "Physical random generators" is a confusing phrase.. I have tried to rewrite it to avoid this. --Richard Clegg 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very satisfied with the present solution, using the phrase "Methods for generating random results".--Niels Ø 10:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted "but are unreliable for more official applications, especially cryptography" as an edit because it is misleading (what is an "official" application anyway). There are a number of applications which need "better" randomness -- in mathematics research for example. I am now trying a third wording in the hopes this will be acceptable. --Richard Clegg 12:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the whole article was curfty and made an edit pass.--agr 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work -- I feel you've really improved it! --Richard Clegg 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to point out somewhere in the article that the Atari 8-bit home computers did use a physical process (noise circuit) to generate their random numbers. As a often overlooked home computer (disdainly called a "toy" by most "serious" IBM-PC clone owners), I doubt many involved in chaos and random theory ever knew this. As a matter of fact, the Basic had no pseudo random number generator, totally relying on the true random number generator, so to get PR numbers this had to be mocked up with software. Why would anyone do this? For the sake of repeatability in programs.

Please see http://www.atarimagazines.com/v7n11/randomatari.html (Antic Article "RANDOM ATARI - Enhancing the number generator" By David McIntosh.)

Synopsis: "Random Atari is a teaching article and utility program that explains a little-known technique of generating a repeatable series of "pseudo-random" numbers that make it easier for you to debug your programs. The technique also produces a much wider range of random numbers. This BASIC program works on all 8-bit Atari computers of any memory size, with disk or cassette."

Anyone want to tackle this, or any suggestions where I might add it?

The first paragraph of the main text has: "The other uses computational algorithms that produce long sequences of apparently random results, which are in fact determined by a shorter initial seed or key." What is a "seed"? What is a "key"? These terms are not defined anywhere (nor are they hyperlinked). There is an article (stub) entitled "Random seed." The term "seed" is defined circularly as "a number (or vector) used to initialize a pseudorandom number generator." How does that work?

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Random number generation which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]