How do you generate a truly random number?

how do you generate a truly random number?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=bf7NbRFyg3Y
arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4512.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

random()

Get a Raspbery Pi, they have a hardware RNG

What's your definition of "truly random"?

7777777 could be a random number. The chances of drawing it are infinitesimally small but it's still completely possible.

can't be done

So do Intel and AMD cpus

sampling thermal noise

1) Single photon faint pulse laser
2) Beamsplitter
3) 2 photon detectors, one detecting horizontal polarization of photons, second one detecting vertical.

Thanks to the laws of quantum mechanics, you'll generate a random number.

Truly random would mean without any predictable pattern. But you're not gonna be able to do that if you've got an algorithm behind it, no matter how complex.

>truly random
in reference to what, the universe?

see this question makes no sense.

6514213301561916516 1819216513216849479 8198497842616216519 4916506204810811521 0561984084910260165 4949515640984095121 0651095162103216548 4979879879501621698 0079156451621978490 8704596126190804798 4261651621321321604 9845216216519849510 6219514079087809789 7075640564632103106 5409849798794095194

If we're taking RdRand, that one is so likely to be NSA'd, not even Linus trusted it.

Make a fucking hash and stf.

how do i write this is javascript?

Flip flop racing.

6

Here you go, a truly random number

Do you want a truly random number or a sufficiently random number?

The latter can be generated by algorithms with proper seeding.

Truly random output would require an external random source of input - it isn't something a computer can generate on its own.

Yes it's call a key.

...

This assumes that hidden variable theories are false.

Got it

None of those are truly random, just uncertain

Only way to get a truly random number is from creating some non-logaritmic system that involves particle radiation

>this kills the determinist

So what's the problem? Hidden variables were ruled out very long time ago.

Yeah I wouldn't trust it, but I wouldn't trust any other hardware rng on consumer chips either. IIRC Linux still uses it as one source for the entropy pool.

>debian.png

why did his skin color change in the last panel?

>tfw your random numbers are not free as in freedom

Because you can never be sure with a random things. It can already be the thing.

how do you NSA a generator?
make a toggle sent over say the network that flips it to be shitty?

You already thinked of that number.

So It's not truly random.

get a d100

return 4; // chosen by fair dice roll.

smash your head on a numpad

All of those are truly random, vis Zeilinger or introductory QM text like Landau.

Make the numbers it generates be somehow predictable for you.

Ask some woman.

NIST
I
S
T

Oh boy here we go again. To generate a truly random number means to create something that isn't "there". If a mind has this capacity it's non-mechanistic.

manipulate or predict the inputs so the output becomes predictable

quantum

Use node.js

i generated a random number for you user
here it is: 5
thank me later

Create a device filled with ball bearings of 8 different weights and send it to space. Put some kind of detector in it so that whenever it's struck by a bearing it stores the number and transmits it back to earth.

t. collegiate

Does such a thing even exist?

the number of girls you fucked

Everything is governed by physics. If you could have a complete understanding of our current physical state, you can predict what will happen in the future. Therefore, there is no random.

But rand() in most langauges is probably sufficient.

quantum mechanics

Isn't radioactive decay completely random?

Wow how did you figure that out?

youtube.com/watch?v=bf7NbRFyg3Y

It's not totally random though, is it? Just unpredictable with modern tools. I think there's a difference.

With a double slit expieriment and being around to observe it or not

Use the number 4, the number 4 is random.

5 is not a random number

>infinitesimally small

55489246336 i didnt think of it, i randomly pressed buttons, how is this not random and how do you see anyone predicting it retard?

It has been proven that QM has no underlying variables to determine causality given that the speed of light indeed is the fastest speed for objects with mass.

you don't

yes, as part of the set of all integers, it is an infinitesimally small probability

nothing changed. theres 2 of those monster things

Here you have
4
Rolled by diceware. Guaranteed to be random.

Just use your post number on Sup Forums faggot.

I think you could build an extension card containing a small source of americium or equivalent and a scintillation counter
>inb4 you overdo it and the radiation starts flipping bits in RAM

...

>put keyboard under dick
>get a boner
>start smashing dick around keyboard in random patterns
>when finished, remove non-numeric characters from the created string
>done

Have it generate digits of pi or some other sufficiently random looking predictable output.

Shape of average human head causes bias.

Ram dick into numpad

Every hardware RNG is probably nsa backdoor'd.

hidden variable theorems have been proven to be false

Math.random

Random numbers are too important to be left to chance.
Humans are not equipped to be able to tell if a number is random. Even the numbers from 1 - 9 in order could be generated by a random number generator.

You dont. Or at least you cant with a computer. Only pseudorandom numbers are generated with any programming function even when basing it on time

>what is hw
>how do photons work
>why am i a retard
Stay tuned to find out the answers, faggot.

>infinitesimally small
No one says that you fucking moron; "infinitesimal" means extremely small.

>brainlet trying to sound intelligent
I cringed hard.

>it is an infinitesimally small probability
guess you're one of those drooling retards who can't describe anything without using dumbass adverbs. learn how to write

everyone think of a random number to help user with his homework.

12

deterministically

420 29 24 7

A very, very , very long atena connected to an ADC then sampling the noise.

Obligatory

Read on, retards arxiv.org/pdf/1411.4512.pdf

you can't force us.

var randomnumber =1 if {randomnumber=1 else { ++1 if{
randomnumber==2
else
{++1 if{randomnumber==3
else{++3 if{ randomnumber==4
{+1/randomnumber++3}
}
}

Just smash you're numpad with you're fist wtf

You either read that paper or i'll start yet another gaymen benchmark thread.

did you even read the paper you linked? lmao, are you even familiar with it, or did you just google it? Go be a brainlet somewhere else

Yes, did you?

>are you even familiar with it,
dude its basic university probability.
>underage detected.
if you are not C.S. or E.E. what the fuck are you doing in Sup Forums and do not tell me you are a progammer because let me tell you something you fucking sucks if you can understand basic math.

i have a CS degree, i guarantee you that you didn't understand the paper

go read it instead of reading the description

why so much trouble using optics, why not just use the ADC and an antena?

Less noise, read the paper.

>tfw too much of a brainlet to understand any of this

>i have a CS degree, i guarantee you that you didn't understand the paper
>CS
oh, I see the problem I have a E.E. Degree and I understand the paper. Specially because I took optic based communication courses.

Even with a simple information theory course you could understand the paper.

you didn't understand the paper if you think it proves you can generate truly random numbers

>Less noise,
and why noise would be bad for a true random generator number?

No you didn't, now go back to reading up on information theory, brainlet undergrad.
Noise in this context means classical noise, which means lower entropy, read the paper please.

this is why people laugh at CS