🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CH28NFT@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> pom@anke.imsd.uni-mainz.DE (Prof. Dr. Klaus Pommerening) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.171127.2162@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>  
>
>In the literature there is a certain confusion as to how call this sort
>of (unpredictable) pseudo-random generators. Examples are:
> - secure
> - unpredictable
> - cryptographically strong
> - perfect
>I prefer the latter term, because it is so short, and, more
>important, the cryptographic strength implies that the generator
>passes all efficient statistical tests -- truly perfect, isn't it?

"Perfect" randomness suggests "true" randomness to me.  In
particular, the restriction to "efficient" statistical tests
does not seem implied.
"Cryptographically strong" is well defined and is actually
descriptive of what is needed, but tends to be a mouthful to
say and a bother to type.
"Unpredictable" is fine, although explinations are sometimes
needed.
"Secure" has connotations that may color discussions.

So all in all, I prefer "unpredictable" followed by
"cryptographically strong", and the latter in cases
where clarity is more important than convenience.

		--Ken Pizzini