RE: Separate threads of random numbers
Kat wrote:
<snip>
> I have often wondered why people don't look to nature for random
> numbers.
> There, i was just wondering it again! Like, take a random weather
> reading
> from a list of locations around the world, perform random math on it
> with a
> reading from another location, or a random number of random readings. Or
>
> against the 3D location in the sky of a random planetary body. Even if
> one
> cannot do this in real time, one can bank the readings for use as
> needed, or
> as seed values in conventional random number generator. This would give
> you values no one has control over, and are unlikely to be repeatable.
> Scope
> might be a problem, or significant digits, so loop the random math
> operations
> untill you get the digits (altho this will put you somewhat at the mercy
> of the
> math chip peculiarities).
This seems like a good idea, and for many people it works well.
But it has problems, and so care must be taken for 'true' randomness.
For example, in any natural set of numbers, if you pull the first
digit, "1" will occur more often than any other number. Similarly,
if you just look through a list of small natural numbers, 1 through
3 tend to be more common. I think there are other peculiarities
among natural numbers as well; for 'high-quality' randomness, one
might want to note and avoid these pitfalls.
Rod
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
