new idea for random number generation

older
More #$%& from #$%&#$ %&#$%&#$ Re:...

\0xDynamite

3 Aug 2017 3 Aug '17

6:54 p.m.

Speaking of cryptography (harhar), I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true. The equation is capable of producing an infinite stream of numbers that get more random as you continue to use the equation. The amount of true randomness approaches the depth of your word size, but in theory you can create an implementation with arbitrary depth (say 10000 bits). Is this interesting to anyone? Marxos

Show replies by date

Zenaan Harkness

4 Aug 4 Aug

2:15 a.m.

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

Speaking of cryptography (harhar), I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true.

The equation is capable of producing an infinite stream of numbers that get more random as you continue to use the equation. The amount of true randomness approaches the depth of your word size, but in theory you can create an implementation with arbitrary depth (say 10000 bits).

Is this interesting to anyone?

It's 100% deterministic still, since it's nothing but a deterministic algorithm driving the "appearance of" random output - if you know the algo, you know the output, simple as that. Easy mistake to make - you're conflating infinite variation, with infinite randomness. And yes there's a bit of the 100 monkeys tapping away at a keyboard in the thought. And to make it even clearer - yes the stream might be infinitely varying in what can stochastically or in other ways be described as random --if you didn't know the algorithm producing that stream--, AND if you could, and here's the missing key perhaps: pick a random starting spot in that stream, then yes, you'd have a sort of private key. But even there, here's the problem, with an infinite stream, you need an infinitely large indexing ability to be able to choose a "truly random" starting point - the point being, if you want it to be random, you actually need random input: check out the difference between /dev/random and /dev/urandomm, and grok these differences, and it should all make sense. So now what you're now asking is: - which algorithms generate usefully varying output, based on just a few bits of available truly random input Another way to ask this: based on very limited single-bit bits of truly random input, what is the "most random" output we can deterministically generate to give the appearance of randomness. This is /dev/urandom's job. Once you're in the ballpark of "algorithms which usefully spread input bits into output bits", next come questions like CPU cycle cost to do such spreading. Good luck,

Zenaan Harkness

2:28 a.m.

...

difference between /dev/random and /dev/urandomm,

Ah yes, /dev/urandomm - this is the meditative version of /dev/urandom, specially designed to invoke the Omm Mah Nay Pad May Hummmm chanting invocation. The kernel devs were only a little reluctant to include this device - but pending some constructive experimentation, should be in the 4.14 kernel.

Steve Kinney

3:08 a.m.

On 08/03/2017 02:54 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

Speaking of cryptography (harhar), I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true.

The equation is capable of producing an infinite stream of numbers that get more random as you continue to use the equation. The amount of true randomness approaches the depth of your word size, but in theory you can create an implementation with arbitrary depth (say 10000 bits).

Is this interesting to anyone?

Thing is, the output of an equation that takes one iteration's output as input for the next round, etc. is 100% deterministic: The same equation, with same initial input, produces the same output every time. Being unable to predict an iterated feedback function's 9 millionth digit on its 9 millionth iteration by any means other than actually iterating it 9 million times qualifies the function as "chaotic." But chaos is not entropy: Actually running an iterated function does enable one to reconstruct the output stream perfectly, while in cryptography "entropy" means completely unpredictable data that can not be predicted or reproduced by any means other than recovering a physical record of the data set in question. Only physical sources can generate real entropy in this sense: Decaying isotopes, noise from a leaky diode, tumbling dice, snapshots of variable hardware states in a computer (least significant n. digits of CPU temperature, fan speed, keystroke intervals, etc.) do qualify as entropy; the Mandlebrot set does not. This does leave open the possibility of using a true random number (n. bits of entropy) to seed an iterated function that will "inflate" that number to any size desired - but no matter how cunning the algorithm, those n. bits of entropy are all there is, and define the difficulty (or otherwise) of brute force breaking resulting ciphertexts. In cryptography, common sense is a major pitfall. When I first got interested in modern cryptography, I made the same mistake: I was quite sure that the Mandlebrot set would make a super-powerful cryptosystem possible. But alas... deterministic functions, however "chaotic" the output, add no entropy to the initial input. Math is my weakest subject, so I am indecently proud of having studied the RSA cipher until I actually understood it well enough to trust it - 20 years ago. My grand accomplishment was possible because RSA is surprisingly simple, once presented and explained. Today: Don't ask me, math is my weakest subject. :o)

\0xDynamite

1:59 p.m.

On 8/4/17, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

On 08/03/2017 02:54 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...
Speaking of cryptography (harhar),

That joke, btw, was because there's hardly any discussion on this lists subject.

...

...
I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true.

The equation is capable of producing an infinite stream of numbers that get more random as you continue to use the equation. The amount of true randomness approaches the depth of your word size, but in theory you can create an implementation with arbitrary depth (say 10000 bits).

Is this interesting to anyone?

Thing is, the output of an equation that takes one iteration's output as input for the next round, etc. is 100% deterministic: The same equation, with same initial input, produces the same output every time.

Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same result?

...

Being unable to predict an iterated feedback function's 9 millionth digit on its 9 millionth iteration by any means other than actually iterating it 9 million times qualifies the function as "chaotic."

Yes, although I differentiate between deterministic chaos and non-deterministic by using the term "stochastic" for the former.

...

Only physical sources can generate real entropy in this sense: Decaying isotopes, noise from a leaky diode, tumbling dice, snapshots of variable hardware states in a computer (least significant n. digits of CPU temperature, fan speed, keystroke intervals, etc.) do qualify as entropy;

That's part of the question, are those things deterministic, albeit at several more orders maginitiudes than our computers? I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear. Marxos

Steve Kinney

6:18 p.m.

On 08/04/2017 09:59 AM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

On 8/4/17, Steve Kinney wrote:

...
On 08/03/2017 02:54 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...
Speaking of cryptography (harhar),

That joke, btw, was because there's hardly any discussion on this lists subject.

Punk ass bitches 'round here don't much talk about ciphers.

...

...
Thing is, the output of an equation that takes one iteration's output as input for the next round, etc. is 100% deterministic: The same equation, with same initial input, produces the same output every time.

Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same result?

Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the path the coin takes, etc.

...

...
Only physical sources can generate real entropy in this sense: Decaying isotopes, noise from a leaky diode, tumbling dice, snapshots of variable hardware states in a computer (least significant n. digits of CPU temperature, fan speed, keystroke intervals, etc.) do qualify as entropy;

That's part of the question, are those things deterministic, albeit at several more orders maginitiudes than our computers?

Again, the outputs of these processes can not be predicted unless their inputs are under precise control, which in practical situations they are not. A big factor here is that the random number generators used to make cryptographic keys are under the control of the user (or had better be!), and the user will act to assure that the variables driving the generator are not monitored to produce predetermined outputs.

...

I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear.

This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and Chaos is ideal for creating life. Almost as if somebody set that up on purpose. To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation, some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few have conditions supporting the development of life. But if so, there must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and error process get started? Which jumps us up to yet another "higher" context, etc. ad infinitum. Verily, 'tis a mindfucker. :o)

\0xDynamite

8:40 p.m.

...

...
...
Thing is, the output of an equation that takes one iteration's output as input for the next round, etc. is 100% deterministic: The same equation, with same initial input, produces the same output every time.

Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same result?

Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the path the coin takes, etc.

Yes, but those parameters can be expressed with a single vector encoding force and direction. The POINT is the number of states of a single 64-bit word, for example, is nearly the number of atoms in the known universe.

...

...
...
Only physical sources can generate real entropy in this sense: Decaying isotopes, noise from a leaky diode, tumbling dice, snapshots of variable hardware states in a computer (least significant n. digits of CPU temperature, fan speed, keystroke intervals, etc.) do qualify as entropy;

That's part of the question, are those things deterministic, albeit at several more orders maginitiudes than our computers?

Again, the outputs of these processes can not be predicted unless their inputs are under precise control, which in practical situations they are not.

Right, but this is analogous to SEEDING your starting variable -- you only have 1.8E19th choices, LOL. Practically speaking, double that and you're golden. After than you just have to communicate your seed value (somehow), like the least significant bit of each pixel in a random image uploaded to the web.

...

A big factor here is that the random number generators used to make cryptographic keys are under the control of the user (or had better be!), and the user will act to assure that the variables driving the generator are not monitored to produce predetermined outputs.

...
I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear.

This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and Chaos is ideal for creating life.

Ah, that's only the ecosystem of the Earth. Science, to my knowledge has not expanded this balance to include the heavens.

...

Almost as if somebody set that up on purpose. To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation, some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few have conditions supporting the development of life.

The confusion here is in the word "universe". The word already encodes an idea of WHAT IS. Namely, a three dimensional void with a continuous single vector of time. But see, that order is already presumptive. (This is why I say "in MY cosmology")..

...

But if so, there must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and error process get started? Which jumps us up to yet another "higher" context, etc. ad infinitum.

Verily, 'tis a mindfucker.

LOLz, funny, but there are answers. Keep probing... Marxos

Steve Kinney

5 Aug 5 Aug

12:31 a.m.

On 08/04/2017 04:40 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

...
...
Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same result?

Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the path the coin takes, etc.

Yes, but those parameters can be expressed with a single vector encoding force and direction.

Given the number of variables involved, it is impractical for an adversary to measure those variables, and vanishingly improbable for the coin-tosser to control them well enough to (consciously or otherwise) predict or control the outcome. So the practical criteria for "random" are met.

...

The POINT is the number of states of a single 64-bit word, for example, is nearly the number of atoms in the known universe.

True that - but in mathematics, people deal with numbers larger than anything likely to be observed in the gross dimensions of Nature - excluding combinatorial dimensions, i.e. the number of possible arrangements of grains of sand on the Earth's beaches, which I am sure exceeds the diameter of the observable universe measured in millimeters. Lucky for cryptographers, they get to deal in combinatorial systems almost exclusively.

...

...
Again, the outputs of these processes can not be predicted unless their inputs are under precise control, which in practical situations they are not.

Right, but this is analogous to SEEDING your starting variable -- you only have 1.8E19th choices, LOL. Practically speaking, double that and you're golden.

After than you just have to communicate your seed value (somehow), like the least significant bit of each pixel in a random image uploaded to the web.

Ideally key material would be communicated physically, under conditions designed to exclude eavesdropping or later exposure of the key to hostile parties. Using a large stream of random bits as a unique key (called a one time pad) provides absolute security against cryptanalysis, provided the key is not stolen. A hybrid method where the random bits are "inflated" to a larger bit stream for use as a key for messages longer than the random key can work. But as noted earlier, using a hash function to expand a short key yields no more entropy; an adversary who knows or guesses what hash function was used, needs only "brute force" the original short key to recover the whole ciphertext.

...

...
...
I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear.

This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and Chaos is ideal for creating life.

Ah, that's only the ecosystem of the Earth. Science, to my knowledge has not expanded this balance to include the heavens.

Exobiology is a thing. In the early days it was a "science without a subject matter to study" but that has changed. A long while back, amino acids were discovered in interstellar dust clouds, indicated by spectral absorption lines in starlight shining through them. Closer to home, comets have been found to contain a wide range of biochemicals. For reasons I still don't quite understand, people used to talk about meteorites from Mars hitting the Earth, and some speculated that life may have hitched a ride here on them. Now this: According to some measurements, what looks like fragments of tissue and even possible micro-artifacts containing biological materials are being swept out of space by the Earth on a truly massive scale: http://www.panspermia.org/balloon2.htm

...

...
Almost as if somebody set that up on purpose. To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation, some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few have conditions supporting the development of life.

The confusion here is in the word "universe". The word already encodes an idea of WHAT IS. Namely, a three dimensional void with a continuous single vector of time. But see, that order is already presumptive. (This is why I say "in MY cosmology")..

I lost count of how many dimensions string theory is up to now. Maybe 19? As I said, math is my weakest subject. Dark matter, which I long considered a modern equivalent of the 19th century's Luminiferous Ether, now appears to be a thing; its structure has been mapped and space behaves "as if" dark matter was responsible for the distribution of galaxies made of 'regular' matter. So there we have empirical evidence of a 'universe next door' that interacts with ours exclusively through gravity. So why not dozens, millions or quadrillions of "universes", each with its own Big Bang and distinct physical laws, coexisting with our own in a larger context that contains them all and could be called "the real universe"? If so, that would explain why our space time continuum appears to be designed to create life, without the necessity for a guiding intelligence of some kind: In this scenario our life-generating cosmos is not special in any way, except that we happen to be inside it. No evidence supports this multiple-cosmos model; by definition none can. But it has become an article of faith among the best educated Atheists; their religion can't get by without it.

...

...
But if so, there must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and error process get started? Which jumps us up to yet another "higher" context, etc. ad infinitum.

Verily, 'tis a mindfucker.

LOLz, funny, but there are answers. Keep probing...

Maybe there are. Maybe in some sense I know some of those answers - I have had some very unusual experiences as results from intensive practice of mystical techniques. But alas: The physical brain can not encode and retain more than a tiny fragment of that information, and language can convey even less. The verdict of mystical philosophies and their associated training programs is unanimous: The ground state of reality can not be described or explained, you have to go and see for yourself. :o)

John Newman

4:26 a.m.

...

On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:31 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

On 08/04/2017 04:40 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:

...
...
...
Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same result?

Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the path the coin takes, etc.

Yes, but those parameters can be expressed with a single vector encoding force and direction.

Given the number of variables involved, it is impractical for an adversary to measure those variables, and vanishingly improbable for the coin-tosser to control them well enough to (consciously or otherwise) predict or control the outcome. So the practical criteria for "random" are met.

...
The POINT is the number of states of a single 64-bit word, for example, is nearly the number of atoms in the known universe.

True that - but in mathematics, people deal with numbers larger than anything likely to be observed in the gross dimensions of Nature - excluding combinatorial dimensions, i.e. the number of possible arrangements of grains of sand on the Earth's beaches, which I am sure exceeds the diameter of the observable universe measured in millimeters.

Lucky for cryptographers, they get to deal in combinatorial systems almost exclusively.

...
...
Again, the outputs of these processes can not be predicted unless their inputs are under precise control, which in practical situations they are not.

Right, but this is analogous to SEEDING your starting variable -- you only have 1.8E19th choices, LOL. Practically speaking, double that and you're golden.

After than you just have to communicate your seed value (somehow), like the least significant bit of each pixel in a random image uploaded to the web.

Ideally key material would be communicated physically, under conditions designed to exclude eavesdropping or later exposure of the key to hostile parties.

Using a large stream of random bits as a unique key (called a one time pad) provides absolute security against cryptanalysis, provided the key is not stolen.

Also provided you aren't so stupid to re-use your one time pads, of course ;) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project

...

A hybrid method where the random bits are "inflated" to a larger bit stream for use as a key for messages longer than the random key can work. But as noted earlier, using a hash function to expand a short key yields no more entropy; an adversary who knows or guesses what hash function was used, needs only "brute force" the original short key to recover the whole ciphertext.

...
...
...
I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear.

This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and Chaos is ideal for creating life.

Ah, that's only the ecosystem of the Earth. Science, to my knowledge has not expanded this balance to include the heavens.

Exobiology is a thing. In the early days it was a "science without a subject matter to study" but that has changed. A long while back, amino acids were discovered in interstellar dust clouds, indicated by spectral absorption lines in starlight shining through them. Closer to home, comets have been found to contain a wide range of biochemicals. For reasons I still don't quite understand, people used to talk about meteorites from Mars hitting the Earth, and some speculated that life may have hitched a ride here on them. Now this: According to some measurements, what looks like fragments of tissue and even possible micro-artifacts containing biological materials are being swept out of space by the Earth on a truly massive scale:

http://www.panspermia.org/balloon2.htm

...
...
Almost as if somebody set that up on purpose. To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation, some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few have conditions supporting the development of life.

The confusion here is in the word "universe". The word already encodes an idea of WHAT IS. Namely, a three dimensional void with a continuous single vector of time. But see, that order is already presumptive. (This is why I say "in MY cosmology")..

I lost count of how many dimensions string theory is up to now. Maybe 19? As I said, math is my weakest subject.

Dark matter, which I long considered a modern equivalent of the 19th century's Luminiferous Ether, now appears to be a thing; its structure has been mapped and space behaves "as if" dark matter was responsible for the distribution of galaxies made of 'regular' matter. So there we have empirical evidence of a 'universe next door' that interacts with ours exclusively through gravity.

So why not dozens, millions or quadrillions of "universes", each with its own Big Bang and distinct physical laws, coexisting with our own in a larger context that contains them all and could be called "the real universe"?

If so, that would explain why our space time continuum appears to be designed to create life, without the necessity for a guiding intelligence of some kind: In this scenario our life-generating cosmos is not special in any way, except that we happen to be inside it. No evidence supports this multiple-cosmos model; by definition none can. But it has become an article of faith among the best educated Atheists; their religion can't get by without it.

...
...
But if so, there must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and error process get started? Which jumps us up to yet another "higher" context, etc. ad infinitum.

Verily, 'tis a mindfucker.

LOLz, funny, but there are answers. Keep probing...

Maybe there are. Maybe in some sense I know some of those answers - I have had some very unusual experiences as results from intensive practice of mystical techniques. But alas: The physical brain can not encode and retain more than a tiny fragment of that information, and language can convey even less. The verdict of mystical philosophies and their associated training programs is unanimous: The ground state of reality can not be described or explained, you have to go and see for yourself.

:o)

\0xDynamite

24 Sep 24 Sep

10:06 p.m.

...

...
...
Verily, 'tis a mindfucker.

LOLz, funny, but there are answers. Keep probing...

Maybe there are. Maybe in some sense I know some of those answers - I have had some very unusual experiences as results from intensive practice of mystical techniques. But alas: The physical brain can not encode and retain more than a tiny fragment of that information, and language can convey even less. The verdict of mystical philosophies and their associated training programs is unanimous: The ground state of reality can not be described or explained, you have to go and see for yourself.

Well, consider that the universe may actually be a scale-free system: that there is no "millimeter" of the universe outside Man, him/herself. That the machines that man has made to "measure" space already encode a priveleged ontology that we take for granted (a lens for example encodes a certain biased relationship to our mammalian visual order, reversing only one axis, for example). These are just way's we've organized our relation between the subjective reality of our consciousness to the objective reality that (some) others agree to. We do this, perhaps, simply because it is more *practical* to work with each other than in isolation. But to forget this and make objective reality an absolute is to simply create another religion. Science has not done better than the world's religions at creating a less violent or more sustainable world. Marxos

\0xDynamite

4 Aug 4 Aug

9:28 p.m.

...

This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and Chaos is ideal for creating life. Almost as if somebody set that up on purpose. To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation, some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few have conditions supporting the development of life. But if so, there must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and error process get started? Which jumps us up to yet another "higher" context, etc. ad infinitum.

Verily, 'tis a mindfucker.

still, it's an interesting question (and apropos to Isaaks? quote from John von Neumann): is the universe deterministic? Because IF it is NOT, then physics takes on a level of meaninglessness, right? But, if it is, it is equivalent to using a pseudo-random generator. Marxos

juan

5 Aug 5 Aug

6:02 a.m.

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:28:42 -0500 "\\0xDynamite" wrote:

...

still, it's an interesting question (and apropos to Isaaks? quote from John von Neumann):

tells us more about jesus and bible please!

juan

4 Aug 4 Aug

10:44 p.m.

On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 14:18:43 -0400 Steve Kinney wrote:

...

...
...
Only physical sources can generate real entropy in this sense: Decaying isotopes, noise from a leaky diode, tumbling dice, snapshots of variable hardware states in a computer (least significant n. digits of CPU temperature, fan speed, keystroke intervals, etc.) do qualify as entropy;

That's part of the question, are those things deterministic, albeit at several more orders maginitiudes than our computers?

Again, the outputs of these processes can not be predicted unless their inputs are under precise control,

and in the case of noise in semiconductors, in theory you'd need knowledge of the state of a few million atoms. How many atoms in say 1mg of silicon?* Even the most deranged, braind-dead-public-education 'believers' in 'science' might conclude that no technological device can 'predict' noise inside a $0.01 diode. *silicon's molar mass is 28 so, 28g of silicon have 6x10^23 atoms** - So 1mg of silicon has ~ 2x10^18 atoms - give or take a few decades. **I always wonder where the fuck does that number come from, but I'm asuming it's more or less correct. bottom line, looks like trivial hardware random number generators can be built easily, without any mathematical pseudo random bullshit. http://www.cryogenius.com/hardware/rng/ http://holdenc.altervista.org/avalanche/ et cetera

...

which in practical situations they are not. A big factor here is that the random number generators used to make cryptographic keys are under the control of the user (or had better be!), and the user will act to assure that the variables driving the generator are not monitored to produce predetermined outputs.

...
I ask this semi-rhetorically, because in my cosmology, the universe must have some non-determinism in order for life to appear.

This far, physics describes a Universe where the balance of Order and Chaos is ideal for creating life. Almost as if somebody set that up on purpose. To put a stop to that kind of "superstitious" speculation, some physicists propose that a vast, unlimited number of distinct universes must exist, each with its own physical laws, where only a few have conditions supporting the development of life. But if so, there must be a larger cosmic context in which all these universes happen, and the same speculation arises - how did this massively parallel trial and error process get started? Which jumps us up to yet another "higher" context, etc. ad infinitum.

Verily, 'tis a mindfucker.

:o)

grarpamp

6 Aug 6 Aug

5:33 p.m.

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

...

...
Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same result?

Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the path the coin takes, etc.

A solid toss into air and upon ground, maybe. But if you can't replicate a simple flip, catch, and reverse cointoss from hand to hand with say over 75% bias, you've got a bad case of parkinsons. Never accept a wager based on that old trick, especially if the tosser is seen warming up.

Steve Kinney

7 Aug 7 Aug

1:40 a.m.

On 08/06/2017 01:33 PM, grarpamp wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:

...
...
Would not a coin flip with the exact same initial parameters (height, force, deterministic air currents, and striking surface) have the same result? Only if measures are taken to maintain precise control of these variables; in practical terms, a human tossing a coin will produce an unpredictable result every time due to variations in muscle tension, the path the coin takes, etc. A solid toss into air and upon ground, maybe. But if you can't replicate a simple flip, catch, and reverse cointoss from hand to hand with say over 75% bias, you've got a bad case of parkinsons. Never accept a wager based on that old trick, especially if the tosser is seen warming up.

True that - but in the present context, we presume the tosser /wants/ an honest result. :o)

Georgi Guninski

4 Aug 4 Aug

3:25 p.m.

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

Speaking of cryptography (harhar), I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true.

I would suggest to make a toy implementation say in pari/gp or sagemath and then evaluate it. There are quantitative estimates how "random" a sequence of bytes is. Both as services and standalone applications. IIRC they look for bias, like the rank of matrices over some field. Per rough memories the number Pi failed the crypto randomness test. According to some "there is order in chaos, especially fractals" ;)

jim bell

6:32 p.m.

From: Georgi Guninski On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

...
Speaking of cryptography (harhar), I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true. I would suggest to make a toy implementation say in pari/gp or sagemath and then evaluate it.

...

There are quantitative estimates how "random" a sequence of bytes is. Both as services and standalone applications.

...

IIRC they look for bias, like the rank of matrices over some field.

...

Per rough memories the number Pi failed the crypto randomness test. >According to some "there is order in chaos, especially fractals" ;) An interesting treatment of the subject: http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pi-random.html Jim Bell

jim bell

6:41 p.m.

From: jim bell From: Georgi Guninski On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

...
Speaking of cryptography (harhar), I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true. I would suggest to make a toy implementation say in pari/gp or sagemath and then evaluate it.

...

There are quantitative estimates how "random" a sequence of bytes is. Both as services and standalone applications.

...

IIRC they look for bias, like the rank of matrices over some field.

...

Per rough memories the number Pi failed the crypto randomness test. >According to some "there is order in chaos, especially fractals" ;) An interesting treatment of the subject: http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pi-random.html Jim Bell This is a data sheet for a random number generator IC: http://www.fdk.com/cyber-e/pdf/HM-RAE001.pdf

\0xDynamite

8:51 p.m.

On 8/4/17, Georgi Guninski wrote:

...

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...
Speaking of cryptography (harhar), I was contemplating an idea to generate random streams of random numbers using chaos theory (not the first), specifically the logistic equation [3.5x(1-x)], when I came across the argument (http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/chaos.html) that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true.

I would suggest to make a toy implementation say in pari/gp or sagemath and then evaluate it. [...] Per rough memories the number Pi failed the crypto randomness test. According to some "there is order in chaos, especially fractals" ;)

That raises an interesting question: if this is true, then pi may be a phenomenon of external sources. For example, pi could be equal to 2.0... on a curved surface, namely a sphere (equator and the longitudinal diameter through the pole = 2.0). There is something that keeps pi on a flat surface to give it it`s irrational value. (How can you be sure of your measure without the concept of "perfectly flat"?) Marxos

Izaac

4:24 p.m.

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...

that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true.

"Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." - John von Neumann -- . ___ ___ . . ___ . \ / |\ |\ \ . _\_ /__ |-\ |-\ \__

Razer

5 Aug 5 Aug

2:32 a.m.

On 08/04/2017 09:24 AM, Izaac wrote:

...

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...
that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true. "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." - John von Neumann

Are fortune cookie “lucky numbers” actually lucky? We Analyzed 1,000 Fortune Cookies... http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fortune-cookie-math/

Jan Dušátko

6:01 a.m.

Dne 4. 8. 2017 v 18:24 Izaac napsal(a):

...

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 01:54:06PM -0500, \0xDynamite wrote:

...
that such generators are "psuedo-random", but I don't think is true. "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." - John von Neumann

To better understanding. The description of the random number should be as long as the random number. The algorithm can be considered as one of random number descriptions. Therefore, any number generated by RNG algorithm and longer than the algorithm description can not be considered as random. This number can only be considered as pseudo-random. John von Neumann has right. Questions are almost simple. Do we use random number? Probably no. We using CSPRNG, which is, based on our knowledge, closest to the random as much as possible. Can we test randomness? We can say almost yes. But better maybe. Can this affect cryptography? Maybe. Better - weak RNG will affect it. But we not sure how much difference make the good and perfect RNG. Can we generate random number? Maybe, using TRNG. And, the hardest one. What is exactly mean random number? Can choosing of numbers without any relations between them provide for us enought randomnes? How much of perfect random signal can be? This can lead to one crazy question - if the perfect random will be a small subset, can we be in risk use one of them? Lot of people do hard work understanding, what is it random. How we test random. How we detect random. And, how we can use random. We all enjoy their hard work. -- Jan Dušátko Phone: +420 602 427 840 e-mail: jan@dusatko.org SkypeID: darmodej GPG: http://www.dusatko.org/downloads/jdusatko.asc

Steve Kinney

7:05 p.m.

On 08/05/2017 02:01 AM, Jan Dušátko wrote:

...

And, the hardest one. What is exactly mean random number? Can choosing of numbers without any relations between them provide for us enought randomnes? How much of perfect random signal can be? This can lead to one crazy question - if the perfect random will be a small subset, can we be in risk use one of them?

That is a very tricky issue! A true random number generator will eventually output strings like "1234567890" that look anything but random to a human. So, does random mean "produced by an unpredictable physical process," or does it mean "I do not see a pattern in the output data"? The latter answer is perilous, because our perceptual systems seek patterns and happily impose them where none is present; faces seen in cracked ceiling plaster, etc., are not "there" until we put them there ourselves. I see two answers: A theoretical or abstract answer that says "As long as there is no way to predict the placement or content of 'orderly' outputs in a stream of data, that data is random." A pragmatic answer says "Depending on the application a random number generator is feeding into, it may be necessary to filter out strings that present as 'too easy to guess' where and as they appear." Does this kind of filtering make the remaining 'random' data less random? In the sense of "more predictable," yes it does. But only slightly, unless the pattern seeking filter is /very/ aggressive. Calculating the impact of a filter that excludes strings like "1234567890" from use as "random" data in applications like generating cipher keys should be simple enough. Increasing the length of the keys to compensate for this bias, in the unlikely event that this is considered worth doing, should be trivial in most cases.

...

Lot of people do hard work understanding, what is it random. How we test random. How we detect random. And, how we can use random. We all enjoy their hard work.

Definitely. Because of the close connection between the concept of "random" and concrete physical phenomena that are easy to visualize and manipulate in imagination, even I can understand and play with these ideas. :o)

2552

Age (days ago)

2604

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

22 comments

11 participants

participants (11)

\0xDynamite
Georgi Guninski
grarpamp
Izaac
Jan Dušátko
jim bell
John Newman
juan
Razer
Steve Kinney
Zenaan Harkness