On Saturday, April 20, 2002, at 01:51 PM, gfgs pedo wrote: > hi, > > Here are two ideas which came up in my mind. > Since I have done a few diagrams for illustration and > thought that it will not be a good idea as > attachment,I have put the ideas at the following url > http://www.ircsuper.net/~neo/ > > I sincerely appreciate ur comments.Thank u for ur > time. >
After including a huge amount of stuff which looks to be taken directly from a textbook, you write: "Therefore square root(5) 2.23606797749978969640917366873128.. We consider only the decimal part 23 60 67 97 74 99 78 96 96 40 91 73 66 87 31 28 Above we break the decimal into set of 2 digits proceeding from left to right and gives us random numbers 23, 60, 67, 97, 74, 99, 78, 96, 96, 40, 91, 73, 66, 87, 31, 28 As above we obtain 16 random numbers between 0 an 100. By extending this idea to 3 digits, by grouping the decimals as 3 digits we can get as many random numbers between 0 and 1000. This idea can be extended to any higher order. Is this a good idea for a random number generator too? Thank you for your time. " These decimal digits in the expansion of SQRT(5) are NOT "random." They have a shorter description than themselves, namely, "SQRT(5)," and hence are neither random by accepted definitions nor are they as hard to "predict" as better random-like numbers would be. In short, all somewhat has to do is guess "Maybe he's using the SQRT of a natural number as his source of "random" numbers." Your scheme is not even as good as most PRNGs, which at least purport to make the sequence far-removed from any of the "very short description" sequences. As a meta-point, the world is not in short supply of lots of good RNGs, ranging from Johnson noise detectors to very strong Blum-Blum-Shub generators. The interesting stuff in crypto lies in other places. --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche
