flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
Author |
|
sleepsleep
revolution wrote:
ok, noted, you mentioned about truly random in before, how is it this truly random works, what kind of result it is (expected) to outputs? |
|||
![]() |
|
sleepsleep
Furs wrote:
but what if i tell you, we keep on rolling the dice for another 100k and now dice A got 1=1%, 2=20%, 3=1%, 4=20%, 5=5%, 6=53% dice B got each faces appears 16.6% dice C got 1=20%, 2=5%, 3=3%, 4=40%, 5=10%, 6=12% |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution
sleepsleep wrote: but what if i tell you, we keep on rolling the dice for another 100k and now |
|||
![]() |
|
Furs
revolution wrote: Nooooooo. True randomness means unpredictable. You can still have bias in the generating system. sleepsleep wrote: ok, noted, To be honest, I can't really imagine a "true random" thing actually be statistically compressible with e.g. arithmetic coding, but maybe revolution is right. I'll think about this some more. |
|||
![]() |
|
sleepsleep
revolution wrote:
well, if i built a truly random device, most likely i will insert more than one dice inside (the device use one until the dice hit 6 then device change dice), even if they got their own bias, the output would be more unpredictable, as you said, These follow-on results are so very^lots extremely unlikely also mean totally unpredictable, i think i am confused, if let say a company built a truly random device, and want to sell it, it must proves it is truly random, so how will he proves the device is truly random? A. roll the device for 100 million times and let us see the statistic of output (which i think is quite reasonable to request if i am a buyer) B. construct a mathematical function that will output number based on the secret key you put inside before rolling, anyone who got this key, would know the next number, is truly random equal to B? but B is not random, it just mathematical function that output number, |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution
You can build a TRNG device from a resistor. You can measure small changes in resistance due to thermal noise. Your output will have some bias, it will generate more low levels, or more high levels, it doesn't matter which, but there will be more of one level than the other. So usually an unbiasing circuit is added to "even out" the low-to-high ratio. If you were to take the raw biased output you could compress it. There is no law of randomness that says you can't compress the output, only that the next output be unpredictable. You can have a random biased output with an expected outcome of 60% high level and 40% low level, and still not be able to predict the next output level.
|
|||
![]() |
|
Furs
Ok, that makes sense now, you're right with that
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution
sleepsleep wrote: as you said, These follow-on results are so very^lots extremely unlikely You can't have a dice give you 16.6% 1's after 100k throws, and then suddenly give you 1% 1's for the next 100k throws, that would seriously challenge the known laws of statistics. The probabilities are so low as to be virtually impossible that it is the same dice. |
|||
![]() |
|
sleepsleep
sleepsleep wrote:
sleepsleep wrote:
the first is 10k, the second is 100k, ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution
Still an unbelievable outcome. The odds of such a thing happening by chance are so remote that some other explanation is more likely. I'd suggest that you simply relabelled the die.
|
|||
![]() |
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2 < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2019, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.