Quote:
PvK said:
On the other hand, if you _don't_ know the formula a pseudo-random number genrator is using, and it has the desired distribution, and there is no easy way to deduce the formula, then the result may be indistinguishable from a true random number.
Arguing that a distribution isn't predictable by any practical means is sufficient and entirely different from philisophical or even mathematically provable arguments that it's hypothetically possible to predict a distribution.
Certainly it is quite possible to make a pseudo-random number genrator that is impossible to predict or be considered broken from a game-player's perspective. If the distribution is right, the sequence of play itself adds a shuffling that is too complex to predict.
PvK
|
Yes, for all practical purposes, the system likely works as ordered. I have long sustained my opinion that it is random enough to be indistinguishable from the real thing. That's also why ANSI regulated it
.
VIA's method seems good enough to be considered theoretically random. Sensor's generally perform randomly (anything P<100% is random by definition).