From: Jason Alexander <jalex AT ea DOT oac DOT uci DOT edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: real random numbers
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 11:29:00 -0800
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <3518097C.FFAA2AE1@ea.oac.uci.edu>
References: <351634A2 DOT 5ACD AT hol DOT fr> <35168DA3 DOT 352AE91E AT alcyone DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pv1821.pv.reshsg.uci.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> It doesn't.  There's no such thing as an algorithmically generated
> randon number, because it was always generated by an algorithm.
>
> Pseudorandom number sequences strive to be rather random, but ultimately
> they are generated by an algorithm and thus are 100% predictable.  The
> goal is to find a sequence that's very hard to predict.

   A good reference on pseudorandom number generators (with a special
emphasis on theory) can be found in Knuth's magnum opus _The Art of Computer
Programming_, vol 2.  Most of chapter 3 deals with how to tell whether a
particular generator is "sufficiently random" for one's purposes.  In
Section 3.5, Knuth waxes philosophical on what is meant by "random,"
attempting to obtain a decent definition.  Not for the mathematically faint
of heart, though, (some proofs presuppose advanced calculus).

Jason