🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <236@sri-arpa.ARPA> KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
>From:  "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
>
>  A true random number generator might be a speck of radium with a
>Geiger counter next to it.  A silicon device, i.e. computer, can only
>be a ~rpseudo-random number generator.  The numbers that are produced by
>it may be well distributed, but they only APPEAR random - because of
>our lack of knowledge of the algorithm....

Sorry, the life isn't that simple. Let's not argue about true or pseudo
random numbers, philosophers will do it for us.
We use computers because it's easy to get any distribution we want and
the process is controlled. If you don't understand the mechanism of
generating the numbers you just get some numbers and you have to analyse
them. As a result you could say they have such and such distribution, but
that doesn't imply that the numbers to be generated next will have the
same property.

As far as the examples you used, a Geiger counter counts 0,1,2,3,4,5,6....
That sequence can hardly be considered to be random. The only way to make
it what you call "true random number generator" would be to build some
fairly sophisticated hardware around it. Even then it wouldn't generate
the numbers with required distribution; it's simply too complicated.
It would be much simpler to use an analog silicon device in a mode where
"you lack the knowledge...", but this method (it is actually used) is also
hard to control. A mathematical model is just the easiest and most reliable
approach.

zdenek

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Men are four:
 He who knows and knows that he knows, he is wise - follow him;
 He who knows and knows not that he knows, he is asleep - wake him;
 He who knows not and knows that he knows not, he is simple - teach him;
 He who knows not and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool - shun him!

 zdenek@CS.COLUMBIA.EDU  or 	...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek
 Zdenek Radouch, 457 Computer Science, Columbia University,
 500 West 120th St., New York, NY 10027

> From:  "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
>     From: pyramid!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!hoptoad!tim@Ucb-Vax.arpa (Tim Maroney)
>     ... biasing a random number generator, which is presumably a
>     microscopic silicon device whose functioning requires special
>     training for understanding.
> 
>   A true random number generator might be a speck of radium with a
> Geiger counter next to it.  A silicon device, i.e. computer, can only
> be a ~rpseudo-random number generator.  The numbers that are produced by
> it may be well distributed, but they only APPEAR random - because of
> our lack of knowledge of the algorithm or lack of ability to compute
> its results in our heads.  If someone appears to demonstrate an ability
> to bias a properly operating pseudo-random number generator, that is
> excellent evidence that the experiment IS bogus.
> 								...Keith
	Uh, not quite. There are Hardware random number generators
that are quite random, anhd implemented in silicon. ATT makes one, 
and Intel has one in their "Keyprom". I'm thinking of making one for 
Phil Stevens to use in his informal psi experiments. That is if I can 
convince him to keep this psi stuff out of my physics newsgroup. 
		(Hint, Hint, to all you psiers).
The one in Intel's "Keyprom" looks easy to do in discretes, so I will
probably use a form of that design. (If any of Intels lawyers are reading 
this, don't sue as it's not for profit and I don't make enough to bother with.)
It works by having the output of 3 asynchronous oscillators of varible 
frequency XORed (more or less) and feeding this into a shift register
whose output controls the switched capacitors which change the oscillators
fequency. Oh recursion is such a wonderful thing. The ouput is quite random.
	If you want more info, call Intel and ask  for article 
reprint AR-381 "Locking up system security", or the Solutions magazine 
May/June 1985. I don't know how the ATT chip work, and they probably
wouldn't tell me if I asked. But it's part of their encryption chipset. 
		Just thought I'd let you know.
			Tom Repa(trash@oliven)
P.S. Normal computers can give true random output, too. If you don't
this, I invite you to come here and use our CAD system sometime. You 
never know _what_ its output is going to be!! :-)


Disclaimer: This article was for information only. If you believe anything
I say, you deserve whatever you get. If you want the Truth, go out and 
find it for yourself.


-- 

         

Path:		{hplabs,glacier,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash
If those paths don't work, try:
	 {hali,yuggoth,rlyeh}!miskatonic!shining!trapazohedron!:-O
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
          ___   ___
           * \ / *
              "                That is not dead which can eternal lie,
            //|\\              And in strange aeons even death may die.
          / / | \ \
         |  \   /  | 
          \  \ /  /          Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl !
___________________________________________________________________________

In article <3782@columbia.UUCP> zdenek@heathcliff.columbia.edu.UUCP (Zdenek Radouch) writes:
>>From:  "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
>>
>>  A true random number generator might be a speck of radium with a
>>Geiger counter next to it.  A silicon device, i.e. computer, can only
>>be a pseudo-random number generator.  The numbers that are produced by
>>it may be well distributed, but they only APPEAR random - because of
>>our lack of knowledge of the algorithm....
>
>Sorry, the life isn't that simple. Let's not argue about true or pseudo
>random numbers, philosophers will do it for us.

No, let's argue about true and pseudo random numbers.  The distinction
really is simpler than you apparently think.  If your RNG is
deterministic, i.e. if by knowing its current state you can deduce its
future state, then it's a pseudo-RNG.  A digital computer running a
random number program, assuming the hardware is working correctly,
falls into this category.  A true RNG is by definition unpredictable.
An RNG based on phenomena such as atomic decay, which most physicists
_believe_ to be non-deterministic, falls into this category.

The important distinction for a PSI experiment is that if you use a
pseudo-RNG, you can't absolutely rule out the possibility that the
subject knows or has (perhaps subconsciously) deduced the algorithm
which generates the numbers.

And the other important point, which you cut out of your quoting from
the other article, is that if a subject can influence the outcome of a
_deterministic_ process then there's some funny business going on.  A
person who can do this should also be able to get the following program:

	do forever {
	    print "1"
	}

to print something other than "1".  Or an easier task, to get a
computer to crash just by concentrating at it.  This is easy to do by
just randomly changing memory locations, after all.

>We use computers because it's easy to get any distribution we want and
>the process is controlled. If you don't understand the mechanism of
>generating the numbers you just get some numbers and you have to analyse
>them.

And this is fine for statistics experiments and simulations.  Not so
good, as I said, for PSI experiments where the true source of the
"randomness" is very important.

> As a result you could say they have such and such distribution, but
>that doesn't imply that the numbers to be generated next will have the
>same property.

But we hope that they will!!!-)

>As far as the examples you used, a Geiger counter counts 0,1,2,3,4,5,6....
>That sequence can hardly be considered to be random. The only way to make
>it what you call "true random number generator" would be to build some
>fairly sophisticated hardware around it.

Dum de dum... It was fairly clear to me that this is what was meant.

> Even then it wouldn't generate
>the numbers with required distribution; it's simply too complicated.

I can think of a fairly easy way to generate numbers with a uniform
distribution this way.  Then you use those as input to an algorithm
(see here's where the computer should come in) that uses them to
generate the distribution you want.

>... A mathematical model is just the easiest and most reliable
>approach.

True.  Unfortunately in PSI experiments there are factors which would
cause us to reject the easiest and most reliable way for something more
theoretically sound.  After all, much PSI research is, in a sense,
research into the nature of probability.  For this we want to use
"real" probability and not a computer simulation.

"Oh come on!  You don't really need a cyclotron for your particle
physics experiments.  You can simulate all that stuff on a computer!"

===+===                                         Andre Guirard
 /@ @\                                          ihnp4!mmm!cipher
/_____\
( @ @ )    "Well, yes, I'm opinionated.  But only about
 \ _ /      those subjects where I know I'm right."
  `-'

 In article <1090@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
 >
 >...And the other important point, which you cut out of your quoting from
 >the other article, is that if a subject can influence the outcome of a
 >_deterministic_ process then there's some funny business going on.  A
 >person who can do this should also be able to get the following program:
 >
 >	do forever {
 >	    print "1"
 >	}
 >
 >to print something other than "1".  Or an easier task, to get a
 >computer to crash just by concentrating at it.  This is easy to do by
 >just randomly changing memory locations, after all.

[the rest of the article full of PSI deleted]

Let me tell you something. I am not an open minded person.
I really do have problems with my digesting tract when I see the words
"PSI" and "research" right next to each other. This time it's not a joke.
Sorry to disappoint you.

zdenek

 zdenek@cs.columbia.edu  or 	...!seismo!columbia!cs!zdenek

In article <1090@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:

> And the other important point, which you cut out of your quoting from
> the other article, is that if a subject can influence the outcome of a
> _deterministic_ process then there's some funny business going on.  A
> person who can do this should also be able to get the following program:
> 
> 	do forever {
> 	    print "1"
> 	}
> 
> to print something other than "1".

Maybe the "successful" subjects in psi experiments differ from the others
in that they can influence the charges on the neurons in the experimenters'
brains so as to make them _believe_ the subject did well.  Sure saves the
subjects the chore of influencing all these boring random bits one by one.
So-called sceptics have myelin sheathing with better insulating properties.

-- 

Lambert Meertens, CWI, Amsterdam; lambert@mcvax.UUCP