true random number generator - Linux

This is a discussion on true random number generator - Linux ; Hi all I'm a newbie and maybe my question is not related to this newsgroup, please let me know if that's the case. Anyway, I read this article: http://www.psigenics.com/Research/Papers/US06862605.pdf I wanted to know if it's possible we write a program ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: true random number generator

  1. true random number generator

    Hi all

    I'm a newbie and maybe my question is not related to this newsgroup,
    please let me know if that's the case. Anyway, I read this article:
    http://www.psigenics.com/Research/Papers/US06862605.pdf
    I wanted to know if it's possible we write a program in Linux that uses
    the proposed method to produce tru random numbers.

    Thanks in advance,
    Hesham


  2. Re: true random number generator

    > I wanted to know if it's possible we write a program in Linux that uses
    > the proposed method to produce tru random numbers.


    For sure this is possible - the question is:
    "Do we need such a program?". You have to always keep
    in mind that performance also is an issue. If you want
    to go for it: High Performance Oscillators can be found
    in the Digital Sound Processing Scene. They are used
    for Synthesizers (tone creation and modulation). Most
    of them use kinds of interpolation, but interpolation
    doesn't necessarily prevent randomization.

    BTW: Are "true" random number generators possible? Ain't
    an "Algorithm" inherently repetitive? Well I'm getting
    philosophical.

  3. Re: true random number generator


    Hesham wrote:
    > Hi all
    >
    > I'm a newbie and maybe my question is not related to this newsgroup,
    > please let me know if that's the case. Anyway, I read this article:
    > http://www.psigenics.com/Research/Papers/US06862605.pdf
    > I wanted to know if it's possible we write a program in Linux that uses
    > the proposed method to produce tru random numbers.


    The proposed method is a piece of analog hardware. How do you propose
    to code that up on a discrete machine?

    Did you bother to read even just the Abstract?

    ``The relative jitter between the two oscillatory signals contains a
    calculable amount
    of entropy that is extracted by the processor to produce a sequence
    of true
    random numbers.''

    If you have such a device on your target board, you can write a driver
    for it.


  4. Re: true random number generator


    Paul Hilbert wrote:

    > BTW: Are "true" random number generators possible?


    Yes.

    > Ain't
    > an "Algorithm" inherently repetitive?


    That just means you can't generate true random numbers from an
    algorithm unless there's some truly random input. Real-world computers
    are not Turing machines.

    > Well I'm getting
    > philosophical.


    Maybe a little.

    DS


  5. Re: true random number generator

    > Paul Hilbert wrote:
    >
    >> BTW: Are "true" random number generators possible?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> Ain't
    >> an "Algorithm" inherently repetitive?

    >
    > That just means you can't generate true random numbers from an
    > algorithm unless there's some truly random input. Real-world computers
    > are not Turing machines.


    well to get specific - ain't oscillators inherently repetitive?
    I'm quite sure I am the one who misses the one - general - idea.
    Computers are enhanced turing mashines combined with a stack, aren't they?
    That doesn't make them go beyond algorithmic. Or in other words - what are
    the non-algorithmic parts of the idea of random number generation?
    Where's the randomization coming from? AFAIK there's no evidence for
    random behaviour in the entire universe - there's only chaos, nothing
    random (that's in fact what I meant with "philosophical").

    Randomization as I see its implementation is only nearing towards perfect
    chaos (unreproducability because of too many factors).

  6. Re: true random number generator

    > Hesham wrote:
    >> Hi all
    >>
    >> I'm a newbie and maybe my question is not related to this newsgroup,
    >> please let me know if that's the case. Anyway, I read this article:
    >> http://www.psigenics.com/Research/Papers/US06862605.pdf
    >> I wanted to know if it's possible we write a program in Linux that uses
    >> the proposed method to produce tru random numbers.

    >
    > The proposed method is a piece of analog hardware. How do you propose
    > to code that up on a discrete machine?


    I disagree. Hardware oscillators are not nearer towards perfect ones than
    software implementations. Software synthesis shows, that hardware
    oscillators ain't significantly faster than emulated ones. As far as I can
    see, this method is some kind of frequency modulation - I just can't see
    what's random in it. You can take millions of repetitive patterns and let
    them modify each other - the result is always repetitive.

  7. Re: true random number generator


    Paul Hilbert wrote:

    > I disagree. Hardware oscillators are not nearer towards perfect ones than
    > software implementations.


    Huh?

    > Software synthesis shows, that hardware
    > oscillators ain't significantly faster than emulated ones.


    What does speed have to do with anything?

    > As far as I can
    > see, this method is some kind of frequency modulation - I just can't see
    > what's random in it. You can take millions of repetitive patterns and let
    > them modify each other - the result is always repetitive.


    The patters are not repetitive, they are truly random. They are to some
    extent due to microscopic zone temperature variations inside the
    crystals but they are also to some extent due to even smaller quantum
    effects.

    Oscillators are not repetitive. If you record the period of a
    real-world hardware oscillator to sufficient resolution, it will be
    truly chaotic and will never repeat.

    Modern computers can record timing to a level of a better than
    hundred-millionth of a second by reading the TSC (instruction cycle
    counter). Many hardware effects show truly random behavior on this
    scale, for example disk read delays due to turbulence affecting the
    short-term rotation rate of a hard drive spindle or clock skew between
    the oscillator on its network card and the PLL generating the CPU clock
    due to microscopic zone temperature variations.

    Real world computers are not Turing machines.

    DS


  8. Re: true random number generator

    2006-10-4, 20:48(-07), David Schwartz:
    [...]
    > The patters are not repetitive, they are truly random. They are to some
    > extent due to microscopic zone temperature variations inside the
    > crystals but they are also to some extent due to even smaller quantum
    > effects.
    >
    > Oscillators are not repetitive. If you record the period of a
    > real-world hardware oscillator to sufficient resolution, it will be
    > truly chaotic and will never repeat.

    [...]

    For complement of information, one might want to read RFC 4086.
    Most modern end user PCs have hardware random generators
    builtin: a soundcard, a webcam (for the thermal noise again), or
    even a hard disk (where the fluctuation of the spin speed due to
    chaotic air flow can also be taken as a source of randomness).

    --
    Stéphane

  9. Re: true random number generator

    Paul Hilbert wrote:
    > > The proposed method is a piece of analog hardware. How do you propose
    > > to code that up on a discrete machine?

    >
    > I disagree. Hardware oscillators are not nearer towards perfect ones than
    > software implementations. Software synthesis shows, that hardware
    > oscillators ain't significantly faster than emulated ones.


    Troll or moron?

    Software runs on a computer, whose clock signal is generated by an
    oscillator.

    Any oscillator simulator you run will necessarily have a much longer
    period than that of the clock cycle of the machine that it's running
    on. And in fact, the more numerically accurate it is, the more cycles
    it will require to do its job.

    No matter how accurate it is, it's inescapable that it is performing a
    discrete simulation.


  10. Re: true random number generator

    > Paul Hilbert wrote:
    >> > The proposed method is a piece of analog hardware. How do you propose
    >> > to code that up on a discrete machine?

    >>
    >> I disagree. Hardware oscillators are not nearer towards perfect ones than
    >> software implementations. Software synthesis shows, that hardware
    >> oscillators ain't significantly faster than emulated ones.

    >
    > Troll or moron?
    >
    > Software runs on a computer, whose clock signal is generated by an
    > oscillator.
    >
    > Any oscillator simulator you run will necessarily have a much longer
    > period than that of the clock cycle of the machine that it's running
    > on. And in fact, the more numerically accurate it is, the more cycles
    > it will require to do its job.
    >
    > No matter how accurate it is, it's inescapable that it is performing a
    > discrete simulation.


    I talked about no "significant" improvement in speed. I also said,
    that I think *I* am the one who misses some elementary point(s).
    So for your confidence:

    I'm - in your words - generally to be described as a "moron".

    I thought about apologizing for my interest but it may be the best to
    keep quiet.

  11. Re: true random number generator

    On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 00:33:57 +0000 (UTC)
    "Paul Hilbert" wrote:

    > well to get specific - ain't oscillators inherently repetitive?
    > I'm quite sure I am the one who misses the one - general - idea.
    > Computers are enhanced turing mashines combined with a stack, aren't
    > they?
    >

    Easier to work with? yes. Enhanced? I don't think so. As matter of fact
    a real life computer can't compute all the algorithms a turing machine
    can. The memory on a real computer may be large, but it's not infinite
    like the turing machine tape.

    > That doesn't make them go beyond algorithmic. Or in other words - what
    > are the non-algorithmic parts of the idea of random number generation?
    > Where's the randomization coming from? AFAIK there's no evidence for
    > random behaviour in the entire universe - there's only chaos, nothing
    > random (that's in fact what I meant with "philosophical").
    >

    Well, I'm no physics expert, but aren't the eletron behaviour quite
    random? After all we can predict it's speed or it's position, but not
    both. I think that means that they're somewhat random.

    Maybe a more pratical idea of random would be that a random thing is
    something nobody can predict. That is, given the limited set of tools we
    have today, we cannot precisely predict the outcome of some event.
    Keeping in mind that the algorithm that will enable you to figure out
    that outcome, must be fast enough so it doesn't find it out only after
    the event has already happened. There's no difference between a true
    random event or a event that no one can predict. In the end the result
    is the same.

    > Randomization as I see its implementation is only nearing towards
    > perfect chaos (unreproducability because of too many factors).
    >

    Maybe, but there are so many factors that we aren't even sure if we can
    actually mesure them all. Let's not forget that physics is only a trial
    to make some sense on the universe we live. It doesn't mean that, only
    because we can predict lots of things, everything is predictable. Well,
    this is getting highly offtopic, and highly speculative. I'm not sure
    anyone here have actually taken the time to study this kinda thing.

+ Reply to Thread