From: max_demian@bigfoot.com
On 24/08/2025 16:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2025-08-24, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 12:45:20 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-08-24, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 11:58:23 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>> On 23/08/2025 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:02:39 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>>>>>> Nowadays, processors contain hardware to generate truly random
>>>>>>> numbers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But do they ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer came there none.
>>>>
>>>> Huh ?
>>>>
>>>>> Surely there would have to be specialist hardware to do this.
>>>>
>>>> Not following. Sorry.
>>>
>>> I think Max has misunderstood your question. You were suggesting that
>>> the feature might be nobbled by spooks, he seems to think it might not
>>> exist at all and just be a complete lie and be psuedorandom numbers.
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting any nobbling by anyone.
>
> Oh, sorry. Your question was less insightful than I had thought then.
>
>> I was merely noting that I had no good reason to believe what *other
>> people* tell me about something as abstruse and complex as the science
>> of random numbers.
>>
>> Especially if I am being asked to rely on it.
>>
>>> Your question is sensible, albeit hardly original. His question is
>>> ridiculous. Yes, the processors do contain specialist hardware to
>>> generate the truly random numbers. No, it is not all a lie. Is it
>>> nobbled by the NSA? It's impossible to say.
>>
>> I'll ask again - but not because I wear a tinfoil hat.
>>
>> How do we *know* these numbers are random ?
>
> I've already answered that. But if you want to check for yourself
> there's nothing stopping you writing a program to generate random
> numbers using the relevant processor instruction and then analysing
> them.
How do you tell that they are genuinely random?
--
Max Demian
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
