🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul29.092934.23335@cl.cam.ac.uk> nmm@cl.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
>In article <1126@kepler1.rentec.com>, andrew@rentec.com (Andrew
>Mullhaupt) writes:
> 
>|> Why don't we make RNG a FAQ for sci.math.stat?
>
>It's not making it a FAQ that's the problem - it's finding a GAA (Generally
>Agreed Answer)!
>
>Some of my recent replies are based on work that has been published in 1992,
>and I frequently hear from other workers about important results that I had
>missed (often in the most bizarre journals).  The area may not be large, but
>it is awfully confused.

All or nearly all the discussion on RNG's in this group deals with
algorithmic generators, and one of the conclusions one might reach is
that they are all flawed in one way or another.  Some of the confusion
arises from the variety of criteria for adequacy, or the variety of
applications among those interested in RNG's.  Presumably if it were
possible to create an algorithm that could generate "truly" random
numbers, there could be a GAA.  This brings me to my question:  

Why don't people interested in "good" RNG's simply use one or another of 
the physical random sources, such as radioactive decay or quantum tunneling.
Obviously these would not be appropriate for cases where a repetition of
the random sequence is desired, but otherwise...?  For a couple of
thousand dollars, which is a trivial cost compared to the time spent on
algorithmic RNG research, one can buy excellent, well designed and
executed commercial RNG's.  I would be interested in some discussion of
problems or inadequacies (or indeed virtues) of so-called "true" random 
event generators.

Roger Nelson