🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CH28NFT@minnie.zdv.uni-mainz.de> 
(Prof. Dr. Klaus Pommerening) writes: 
      ....
> 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?

        This raises an interesting question: Given an unpredictable
        number generator (never mind how), just how (statistically)
        random does its output have to be to be cryptographically
        strong? I'm thinking of something like Pickover's strange
        attractor. There's a hazy pattern there, but it doesn't seem
        that the pattern would be a useful analytic tool.

        For the record, Pickover's Strange Attractor:

        X' = sin(a*Y) - Z*cos(b*X)
        Y' = Z*sin(c*X) - cos(d*Y)
        Z' = e*sin(X)

                a,b,c,d,e and the initial X,Y,Z are arbitrary values.

        I'm not suggesting that Pickover is an UNG, but offering it as
        an example of a generator with a non-random, but interesting
        distribution.

        Cheers,
                Marc
---
 Marc Thibault        |  Consulting Systems Analyst  |  The PC: Colt '45
 marc@tanda.isis.org  |  R.R.1, Oxford Mills,        |  of the information
 CIS:71441,2226       |  Ontario, Canada  K0G 1S0    |   frontier
 NC FreeNet: aa185    |                              |

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.0

mQBNAiqxYTkAAAECALfeHYp0yC80s1ScFvJSpj5eSCAO+hihtneFrrn+vuEcSavh
AAUwpIUGyV2N8n+lFTPnnLc42Ms+c8PJUPYKVI8ABRG0I01hcmMgVGhpYmF1bHQg
PG1hcmNAdGFuZGEuaXNpcy5vcmc+
=HLnv
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----