From: Erik Max Francis <max AT alcyone DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: True random numbers.
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 21:24:44 -0700
Organization: Alcyone Systems
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <33FBC30C.6F65F677@alcyone.com>
References: <01bca8e4$2797c940$165e4ec2 AT xyy> <33F36DB3 DOT 4A6E AT cornell DOT edu> <01bcadd0$756fdf40$28071dac AT d-080>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newton.alcyone.com
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

emry wrote:

> There is no actual way for anything involving a computer to be truly
> random. The closest you can get is randomising according to a fairly
> random
> number.  this is not true randomness, but it is about as close as you
> will
> get, short of having the user input the number themselves, wich in most
> cases would go against the neccesaty of a random number, not to mention
> the
> point that this won't even always be random.

This is in fact one of the worst ways to get a random sequence --
namely, just have a human generate it.  Humans have an idea of "random"
(seeing all the digits with equal frequency) that is different from the
_actual_ definition of random (an equal frequency per _slot_).

Ask a person to write down a "random" sequence, and the sequence you
will get will be about as far from random as you can get.

-- 
       Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / email / mailto:max AT alcyone DOT com
                     Alcyone Systems /   web /
http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States /  icbm / 37 20 07 N  121 53 38 W
                                   \
   "Love is not love which alters / when it alteration finds."
                                 / William Shakespeare, _Sonnets_, 116