[lkml]   [1996]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: CONFIG_RANDOM option for 1.99.2
    On 17 May 96 at 9:44, Martin.Dalecki wrote:

    I could resist a long toiome no replying, but this was too much...
    > No definitly false. Monte Carlo methods are based on *equally distributed*
    > sequences. They are not based on *random* sequences. That's a subtile
    > difference! The get_random routine in random.c is sequentializing
    > pseudo random numbers in the range of 0..255 into bigger ones. This is in
    > generall somehow dangerous in respect of the stochstical properties.

    If you have random bytes concatenated to word, they are still random.
    That's why a single bit random generator is enough. Also "equally
    distributed" and "random" are completely independent; a genarator can
    have both properties.

    > It would interrest me if anybody did some serious testing on this topic?.
    > And finally random.c is not as random as You may beleve. Start it on an
    > otherwise not busy machine to see why! Yust do cat /dev/random and see
    > the random numbers coming precisely after any keybord hit. This isn't
    > acceptable for any number cruching, since those are mostly programms
    > which are supposed to run in core and on otherwise idle machines.

    What you are examining are not the random values, but the time when a
    value comes out; that's something completely different.

    > In fact it was a Montecarlo integration, which made me sceptical
    > about /dev/random or /dev/urandom.
    > Marcin

    Please rethink some of your statements!

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.019 / U:8.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site