Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

[Robert Wessel]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:50:19 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?

If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
"truly" random than any other PRNG.

If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 11/1/2018 00:52, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
> If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
> "truly" random than any other PRNG.
>
> If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
> better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").

We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box
and the surface? :)

[Robert Wessel]

Or you could use real dice:

http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic

One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering. Be sure to watch the
video.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 11/1/2018 00:55, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
> Or you could use real dice:
>
> http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic
>
> One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering. Be sure to watch the
> video.
>

Could you shrink the whole thing into the size of a capacitor, and make
it accessible by electronics? :)

[Robert Wessel]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:55:29 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 00:52, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> If it's done in a deterministic fashion, then no, it won't be any more
>> "truly" random than any other PRNG.
>>
>> If you have a source of non-deterministic input, there are certainly
>> better ways to turn that into proper true random output ("whitening").
>
>We possibly could not randomize the first contact point between the box
>and the surface? :)

Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the
physical motion of dice.

IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 11/1/2018 00:59, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
> Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
> randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
> means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
> from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the
> physical motion of dice.
>
> IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
> source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.

So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and
computers?

[Robert Wessel]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:00:42 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 00:59, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> Again, if you do it deterministically, you've not created true
>> randomness. If you have a way of doing non-deterministically, which
>> means you have a non-deterministic input to your system, just start
>> from there, and don't go through the silly exercise of simulating the
>> physical motion of dice.
>>
>> IOW, you can't create real random dice rolls unless you have an actual
>> source of true randomness to input to your dice simulation algorithm.
>
>So there is mechanics that could never be modeled using mathematics and
>computers?

According to most interpretations of Quantum Mechanics, there are
phenomenon that are objectively unpredictable. For example, there is
no apparent way, and if QM is correct, no possible way, to determine
when an unstable atomic nucleus will decay, not matter how much
information we have about that nucleus before hand. We can make
*statistical* statements about such things (eg. half of all carbon-14
atoms in a lump of coal will decay in 5700 years), but the individual
events are not predictable (there's no telling when a particular
carbon-14 will decay).

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> writes:

> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?

There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.

To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a
source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
> somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
>
> To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a
> source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
> of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
> source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.

Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough?

(I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :)

[Robert Wessel]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:22:35 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
>> somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
>>
>> To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a
>> source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
>> of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
>> source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.
>
>Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough?
>
>(I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :)

While was Einstein rejecting quantum mechanics with that statement,
the broad consensus is that he was seriously wrong. QM (in its modern
form) is considered a massively solid theory, backed by masses of
evidence, and tons of tested and verified theoretical predictions. And
everyone fully understands that is also incomplete, and in conflict
with relativity's understanding of gravity (and relativity also has
massive support). Which is why the search for the so-called
"Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing...

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 11/1/2018 01:20, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
>> somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.
>>
>> To use a simulation of dice to get random numbers, you'd need to have a
>> source of random numbers available to you, to perturb the the behavior
>> of the dice. So you'd be using a (relatively) much more efficient
>> source of randomness to drive a really inefficient source.
>
> Are you saying that dices are NOT random enough?
>
> (I remember Mr. Einstein's statement: "God does not play dice" :)

Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them.
A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness
into it.

[Mr. Man-wai Chang]

On 11/1/2018 01:38, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them.
> A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness
> into it.

Could I say the same to quantum mechanics and its implementations? :)

[Richard Heathfield]

On 10/01/18 17:32, Robert Wessel wrote:

<snip>

> QM (in its modern form) is considered a massively
> solid theory, backed by masses of

> evidence[... It] is also incomplete, and in conflict
> with relativity's understanding of gravity [...].

> Which is why the search for the so-called
> "Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing...

I suppose it's almost too obvious to mention, especially as there are so
many great minds involved in the search --- but has anyone looked behind
the settee?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Scott Lurndal]

Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
>
>There are a zillion ways to generate truly random numbers, all based on
>somehow reading a suitably random input -- no need to simulate dice.

When I was at SGI, a couple of colleagues published a paper
on using a Lava Lamp as a source of randomness in a random
number generator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavarand

[Lew Pitcher]

Which the company "Cloudflair" uses today to generate random numbers for
encryption purposes

https://www.fastcodesign.com/90137157/the-hardest-working-office-design-in-
america-encrypts-your-data-with-lava-lamps
--
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet...@gmail.com> writes:

> On 11/1/2018 01:38, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>>
>> Dice are plenty random enough -- you're talking about simulating them.
>> A *simulation* of dice won't be random enough unless you put randomness
>> into it.
>
> Could I say the same to quantum mechanics and its implementations? :)

Yes.

[Robert Wessel]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:15:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 10/01/18 17:32, Robert Wessel wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> QM (in its modern form) is considered a massively
>> solid theory, backed by masses of
>> evidence[... It] is also incomplete, and in conflict
>> with relativity's understanding of gravity [...].
>> Which is why the search for the so-called
>> "Theory-of-Everything", is such a thing...
>
>I suppose it's almost too obvious to mention, especially as there are so
>many great minds involved in the search --- but has anyone looked behind
>the settee?

Well, that would certainly be embarrassing...

I wonder if any of my socks are back there too?

[Chris M. Thomasson]

On 1/10/2018 7:50 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>
> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
>

Fwiw, you can take a look at some:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator

Perhaps: https://www.random.org as well...

[David Brown]

On 10/01/18 17:58, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 11/1/2018 00:55, Robert Wessel wrote:
>>
>> Or you could use real dice:
>>
>> http://gamesbyemail.com/news/diceomatic
>>
>> One of my favorite pieces of over-engineering.  Be sure to watch the
>> video.
>>
>
> Could you shrink the whole thing into the size of a capacitor, and make
> it accessible by electronics? :)
>

Yes - get a high resolution g-sensor or micro-mechanical gyro, and use
the lowest few bits. There is always enough shaking (at least here on
earth) to give high entropy on them.