26-04-2017, 05:27 AM
Going back to the deck of cards, what measure for "slowness" of the suggested process did you have in mind, and how exactly did you imagine the execution? A real world (manual) applicability seems rather crucial in our case.
The order of a deck of cards is accepted as sufficiently random enough for a professional play of 17+4 after it has been shuffled seven times using a shuffling machine. Humans have many, many different ways of shuffling cards by hand.
People don't know "random" (what: apples, pears?) because they are never looking at anything manmade featuring true randomness. Anyone who only slightly touches on the topic of RNGs must get a glimpse how hard it is to get hands on sufficiently "good enough" random numbers for computational purposes. The generation process will leave a trace in the output, if ever so faint - which allows for reverse engineering.
Any method involving tangible things is by orders of magnitude more prone to produce telling patterns in the pseudo-random output.
I believe your method(s) could be deduced, given a few good enough hints (and GPU's). This hasn't been the case for any VMs text, sofar.
While I oppose the argument that overseeing statistical text features would be out of bounds for a XV.(±) creation (Al-Kindi, complications in diplomatic renaissance chiffres etc.), the concept of propability seems a more modern development to me. Generally, I'd like to ask for more linguistic clarity (denoting realm, or scope), because "Randomness is the lack of pattern, coincidence is pattern itself."
Now you have raised the term "writing order" and I guess I'm not the only one looking forward to what you have to offer in this regard.
The order of a deck of cards is accepted as sufficiently random enough for a professional play of 17+4 after it has been shuffled seven times using a shuffling machine. Humans have many, many different ways of shuffling cards by hand.
People don't know "random" (what: apples, pears?) because they are never looking at anything manmade featuring true randomness. Anyone who only slightly touches on the topic of RNGs must get a glimpse how hard it is to get hands on sufficiently "good enough" random numbers for computational purposes. The generation process will leave a trace in the output, if ever so faint - which allows for reverse engineering.
Any method involving tangible things is by orders of magnitude more prone to produce telling patterns in the pseudo-random output.
I believe your method(s) could be deduced, given a few good enough hints (and GPU's). This hasn't been the case for any VMs text, sofar.
While I oppose the argument that overseeing statistical text features would be out of bounds for a XV.(±) creation (Al-Kindi, complications in diplomatic renaissance chiffres etc.), the concept of propability seems a more modern development to me. Generally, I'd like to ask for more linguistic clarity (denoting realm, or scope), because "Randomness is the lack of pattern, coincidence is pattern itself."
Now you have raised the term "writing order" and I guess I'm not the only one looking forward to what you have to offer in this regard.