[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:0.020 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site