Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Robert Wessel]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 23:50:19 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.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").

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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? :)

-- 
   @~@   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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Robert Wessel]

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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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?

-- 
   @~@   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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Robert Wessel]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 01:00:42 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.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).

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Robert Wessel]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 10:52:24 -0600, Robert Wessel
<robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote:

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


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.

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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? :)

-- 
   @~@   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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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.

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.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.

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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" :)

-- 
   @~@   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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Robert Wessel]

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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Robert Wessel]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:15:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@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?

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.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.

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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? :)

-- 
   @~@   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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Joe Pfeiffer]

"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.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.

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Scott Lurndal]

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Lew Pitcher]

Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>>"Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.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.

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

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[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...

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Mace Ayres]

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 7:50:21 AM UTC-8, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?

Are we assured that our human mind/intelligence can know if a number is truly random, or if a algorithm will generate a true random number? If algorithmic, then deterministic? Is the idea of a truly random number an idea, but not necessarily a number that can be proven to be random? How random is good enough?

If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random?

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:54:44 -0800 (PST), Mace Ayres <mace.ayres@gmail.com>
declaimed the following:

>On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 7:50:21 AM UTC-8, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> Is it possible? Any existing algorithms or published papers?
>
>Are we assured that our human mind/intelligence can know if a number is truly random, or if a algorithm will generate a true random number? If algorithmic, then deterministic? Is the idea of a truly random number an idea, but not necessarily a number that can be proven to be random? How random is good enough?
>

	Pick an algorithm... Run many samples... Perform statistical analysis
between expected result vs actual...

	Many random number generators out there -- some have reasonable
randomness, some not... A generator that is using some processor clock may
not provide randomness if invoked in a loop as the loop is a fixed duration
and could keep reading the clock at a determined interval.

	Your subject says "dice" (note: "dice" IS the plural, not "dices" -- a
single one is a "die"). How many dice per "roll". How many sides per die?
(I bring this up as role playing games use 4-sided, 6-sided, 8-sided,
12-sided, and 20-sided [substituting for 10-sided by modulo], and some
novelty dice purport to be 100-sided (percentile dice -- more commonly done
by rolling 2 20-sided to provide 0-9/0-9).

	For a single die, random means one should have close to an even number
of occurences for each value. For a 6-sided die, 6000 rolls should produce
1000 occurences of each value -- since reality won't be that pure, you have
to analyze if the differences still constitute random.

	If rolling multiple dice at a time, the results should fit a bell-curve
-- and again you should have a "truth" value for the bell curve against
which to test the actual results.

	No test will state that something is truly random -- statistical tests
rely on probability that the result may not be random... IE: is the
difference between "truth" and experiment within 95% of the test parameter.

>If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random?

	500 samples is rather small... More samples means statistical
differences will be more precise.
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[AdaMagica]

Am Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2018 23:54:46 UTC+1 schrieb Mace Ayres:
> If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random?

Depends on how you choose. If you take 500 cards and shuffle suffiently after each choice, the outcome depends on your shuffling skills. Result might be quite random.

However, if you just write them down in an arbitrary manner on a sheet of paper, the result is definitely not random.

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 04:45:27 -0800 (PST), AdaMagica
<christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> declaimed the following:

>Am Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2018 23:54:46 UTC+1 schrieb Mace Ayres:
>> If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random?
>
>Depends on how you choose. If you take 500 cards and shuffle suffiently after each choice, the outcome depends on your shuffling skills. Result might be quite random.
>

	Don't know if it applies with 500 cards... but 8 perfect riffle
shuffles with a standard 52 card deck will restore the deck to its starting
arrangement -- so no randomness there. One could probably argue that any
number of perfect riffles won't add randomness <G>
-- 
	Wulfraed                 Dennis Lee Bieber         AF6VN
    wlfraed@ix.netcom.com    HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

Re: Simulating the rolling of dices to produce truly random numbers?

[Mace Ayres]

On Thursday, January 11, 2018 at 4:45:30 AM UTC-8, AdaMagica wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 10. Januar 2018 23:54:46 UTC+1 schrieb Mace Ayres:
> > If I choose n among the set 1..500, based on my own sense of randomness, is that random?
> 
> Depends on how you choose. If you take 500 cards and shuffle suffiently after each choice, the outcome depends on your shuffling skills. Result might be quite random.
> 
> However, if you just write them down in an arbitrary manner on a sheet of paper, the result is definitely not random.

I think we may be in different frames of reference, one defining randomness within a machine/algorithmic frame; and the other from the human frame. In either case, it is human judgement that gives the final approval of 'true' randomness. In one case relying of the 'true' randomness of the machine algorithm; the other relies on what the human says is random. I think stuffing the deck is only relevant with multiple random picks,since the final election is determined where my hand selects a card, which is independent of any shuffle. I can can pick any one of a deck of cards, there is 1:52 chance of getting any card. That is just as random as any algorithm, if we accept that any mental process we have before picking is always random. I propose that our thoughts and determination of which card to pick is ultimately random, though we may imagine that we can pick a card non randomly.