Pseudo Random Generator?

[Guest]

Just wondering what to use/where to go to generate pseudo random stuff like characters of a string

[Electronics Wizardy]

cat /dev/random on linux

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

cat /dev/random on linux

A website maybe?

 

Would random.org work or nah

 

edit-

nvm that's only for numbers it looks like :\

[Naeaes]

1 minute ago, IAmLamp said:

Would random.org work or nah

Random.org would work but I believe the method they use has been deemed to be true random, not pseudo-random.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Naeaes said:

Random.org would work but I believe the method they use has been deemed to be true random, not pseudo-random.

what's the difference?

[Electronics Wizardy]

3 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

what's the difference?

if its real random there is no way to know whats next.

 

Psuedu random will make a random number from a seed or use the cpu to do it. Its possible to know what the next number will be.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Electronics Wizardy said:

if its real random there is no way to know whats next.

 

Psuedu random will make a random number from a seed or use the cpu to do it. Its possible to know what the next number will be.

so true/real random is better because it is unpredictable? therefore more random? 

[Naeaes]

2 minutes ago, IAmLamp said:

what's the difference?

Well, current computers can't generate truly random numbers. It's always based on some algorithm. To us mere mortals it'll look random, but true randomness would require the number to be entirely unpredictable. You can always take the algorithm, reverse engineer it and predict the outcome. Hence it's called pseudo-random. To denote that even though it looks random, it's actually not. But random.org "records" the static from the atmospheric noise and uses that information to generate the numbers. That method has at least this far gone entirely unpredicted and all the sciency people think it's actually, truly, fully random.

 

Pseudo-random is more than enough for your everyday coin-tosses with friends, but if you want a random seed for something like a lottery worth billions, it best be truly random or someone will crack it sooner or later. 

[Guest]

I wonder if there would be something like random.org for characters of a string, I mean I guess you could line all the characters you want to use in a string and then roll the "dice" with random.org the max being the string length and then just use that

 

Might end up going with that >.> 

[KuJoe]

21 minutes ago, Naeaes said:

Well, current computers can't generate truly random numbers. It's always based on some algorithm. To us mere mortals it'll look random, but true randomness would require the number to be entirely unpredictable. You can always take the algorithm, reverse engineer it and predict the outcome. Hence it's called pseudo-random. To denote that even though it looks random, it's actually not. But random.org "records" the static from the atmospheric noise and uses that information to generate the numbers. That method has at least this far gone entirely unpredicted and all the sciency people think it's actually, truly, fully random.

 

Pseudo-random is more than enough for your everyday coin-tosses with friends, but if you want a random seed for something like a lottery worth billions, it best be truly random or someone will crack it sooner or later. 

Kind of correct. Most desktops generate entropy (randomness) from inputs like keyboards and mice which are random inputs since nobody else in the world will know what another person is going to type until they type it and moving the mouse is even more random because most people have different DPIs and sensitivity so the distance a mouse travels is unknown until it moves. Servers use things like RNG keys to generate randomness based on the environment like you said and some CPUs actually generate true randomness based on temperature or voltage.

 

That being said, you're correct that psuedo-random is good enough for most cases.