SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
True random numbers are required in fields as diverse as slot machines and data encryption. These numbers need to be truly random, such that they cannot even be predicted by people with detailed knowledge of the method used to generate them.
[...] For this new approach, the ETH researchers apply the synthesis of DNA molecules, an established chemical research method frequently employed over many years. It is traditionally used to produce a precisely defined DNA sequence. In this case, however, the research team built DNA molecules with 64 building block positions, in which one of the four DNA bases A, C, G and T was randomly located at each position. The scientists achieved this by using a mixture of the four building blocks, rather than just one, at every step of the synthesis.
As a result, a relatively simple synthesis produced a combination of approximately three quadrillion individual molecules. The scientists subsequently used an effective method to determine the DNA sequence of five million of these molecules. This resulted in 12 megabytes of data, which the researchers stored as zeros and ones on a computer.
[...] However, an analysis showed that the distribution of the four building blocks A, C, G and T was not completely even. Either the intricacies of nature or the synthesis method deployed led to the bases G and T being integrated more frequently in the molecules than A and C. Nonetheless, the scientists were able to correct this bias with a simple algorithm, thereby generating perfect random numbers.
Journal Reference:
Linda C. Meiser, Julian Koch, Philipp L. Antkowiak, et al. DNA synthesis for true random number generation [open], Nature Communications (DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-19757-y)
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2020, @05:29AM (5 children)
So the solution to not being able to create an algorithm to create random numbers is to take a list that isn't fully random and apply an algorithm? At least on Star Trek they try to fake it with technobabble.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday November 21 2020, @07:51AM
Naturally they just reverse the polarity of the verteron flow through the dilithium matrix with an applied subspace bias...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2020, @08:06AM
If you have a truly random (independent) but non uniform distribution of bits, you can correct the bias as follows:
Chunk the bit streams into pairs. Discard all 00 or 11 pairs. Interpret 01 as 0 and 10 as 1. This algorithm is commonly used for this specific problem.
This works, no matter what the probability of 0 or 1 is in the original sequence as long as all the bits are independent.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday November 21 2020, @08:27AM (2 children)
Random and biased are not in contradiction. For example, consider rolling perfect dice, but only noting whether the result was a 6 or not. Since those were perfect dice, the result is perfectly random, but nevertheless there's a strong bias towards the event “not 6” which appears 5 times as often as the event “6”.
There are ways to extract unbiased randomness from biased randomness, by using compound events that happen to have equal probability. The simplest method is the one mentioned in a sibling post: When rolling twice, the probability to get a 6 in the first roll and no 6 in the second roll is the same as the probability of getting no 6 in the first roll and a 6 in the second. Thus the simplest way to get unbiased true randomness from your 6/non-6 dice is to only consider those two cases and throw away all cases where you either got 6 twice in a row, or no 6 twice in a row.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday November 21 2020, @11:49AM
Which can be used as the input to another unbiaser! '66' then 'other-other' gives you a 0 and 'other-other' then '66' gives you a 1.
And your waste product is a sequence of '6666's and 'other-other-other-other's, with 1:2195 odds...
(And whilst this might sound superficially clever, it's actually really stupid, as you get diminishing returns really, erm, slowly.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Saturday November 21 2020, @01:41PM
This assumes that you only have marginal bias, i.e. your sequence is identically and independently distributed. My concern and expectation would be that higher-order correlations are present which you would not get rid of with your proposed scheme. These problems are difficult to check for as it is hard to estimate the joint distribution, so I guess they did not do that (TLDR).
BTW to correct bias you do not need to discard anything. Mapping any continuous random variable through its distribution function results in a uniformly distributed variable. This can be approximated for discrete distributions by aggregating several variables.
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 21 2020, @05:49AM
Any so called "truly random" numbers always have non even distribution and so the result is easier to crack than your old multiplication method, which is evenly distributed.
To put it another way, it's either correctly distributed pseudo or badly distributed true. It appears there is some deeper reality behind this fact similar to uncertainty principle.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Mojibake Tengu on Saturday November 21 2020, @07:26AM (12 children)
From the perspective of a programmer, the concept of "true random number" is flawed. No true random numbers ever existed. It's a logical distortion emerging from distorted perception of universe. For example, one may generate so called random numbers using a totally recursive function[1] results of which cannot be estimated/predicted by polynomial means, but are perfectly deterministic.
In a logical paradigm of Religion, there exists an omniscient God, for whom or which by definition all random numbers in nature must be pre-known. So many scientists were/are actually religious believers, so an acceptance of god's existence and existence of random numbers at the same time is a contradiction. This incoherence of mind is actually the reason why I consider any scientist believing in god disqualified from classic science.
So, the problem goes deeper:
Randomness is not a property of a number. It is a property of mind.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function [wikipedia.org]
Respect Authorities. Know your social status. Woke responsibly.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday November 21 2020, @08:32AM (2 children)
That makes only sense if you assume that the universe is equivalent to running a program on a completely deterministic computer. Which is an unproven (and unprovable) assumption. Indeed, quantum mechanics strongly hints at there being true randomness (but, of course, one cannot prove that, either).
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Saturday November 21 2020, @03:37PM (1 child)
MT's premise is that even if a quantum function produces what is random to us, if one assumes an omniscient God, then God knew what the result would be before the universe began, therefore it was deterministic rather than random. If it is truly random, omniscience is impossible.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2020, @11:27PM
Just because it may be deterministic to God, doesn't mean it can't be random to us mere humans.
Oh sure, a theoretical programmer may balk at using a sequence that might be deterministic to God, but an actual programmer will shrug, say "close enough", and use what's available in order to get on with it, and maybe get home before midnight for a damn change.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday November 21 2020, @08:59AM (5 children)
It's just a permutation of the old question "Can an all-powerful God create a stone that He cannot lift?
Or in more modern terms, can God throw the dice behind the couch?
Of course, even your ideal Atheist scientist cannot help but run up against Gödel's second incompleteness theorem which shows that no system may be completely understood within itself. In other words, we can never fully understand the entire Universe without leaving that universe (which is in itself a philosophical can of worms, or is that a tangly ball of noodly appendages?).
In other words, there are so many places where taking our current understanding of things to a natural conclusion leads to broken math and broken logic that adding one more makes no practical difference. I don't actually believe that it's turtles all the way down, I just believe that the appearance of that sort of result just means we don't know enough yet.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2020, @10:00AM (4 children)
That's not what Gödel's incompleteness theorems say. At a minimum, you've gone astray because it only only applies to logical systems that can model a certain amount of arithmetic. If your system falls below that level or fails to meet the other requirements, then it can be done just fine. Gödel's completeness theorem even proves that you can for certain systems.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 22 2020, @11:02AM (3 children)
I think the entire universe more than meets the criteria. If we cannot prove the completeness or consistency of mathematics, which exists within the Universe, our understanding of the universe is necessarily incomplete.
There will always exist something where we ask "Is this always so or might there be an exception?" : dunno
or "Why is this inevitably so?" : dunno.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2020, @12:02AM (2 children)
But the Universe itself may (most likely) not meet that criteria, ala dialetheia or HOL, etc. And we may be able to prove consistency of mathematics even if it did, ala Gentzen or Wright etc. Knowledge we cannot obtain due to our position in the Universe, some incredulity inherent in the species, a strong form of relationism, or that is not actualized within the Universe does not change the Universe itself, either. It existed long before us and will continue without us just fine, whether we know about it or not. But again, the latter part has nothing to do with Gödel either.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 23 2020, @01:54AM (1 child)
Us existing is certainly necessary to us understanding the whole Universe, yes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23 2020, @03:11AM
It is necessary to us understanding the whole Universe, but not whether the Universe is understandable.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Saturday November 21 2020, @09:09AM
True RNG refers to a random number generator that produces sequences which cannot be predicted even if you have the algorithm and input variables. There is nothing illogical about this concept, there exist physical phenomena which produce unpredictable sequences of values when measured. It doesn't matter whose perspective you're examining, the laws of physics remain consistent regardless of whether the observer is a programmer or not.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday November 21 2020, @11:54AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by nostyle on Saturday November 21 2020, @09:18PM
> an acceptance of god's existence and existence of random numbers at the same time is a contradiction
One of the interesting concepts to emerge from work on Unified Field Theory is that there seem to be "curled up" dimensions in our universe of which we humans have no means to penetrate or fathom. Hence what might appear random to us who are ignorant of those dimensions, may be entirely deterministic to an omniscient creator of said dimensions, and the contradiction is merely an illusion.
In a similar vein, one might posit that no human soul will ever know all the decimal digits of Pi, while God is cognizant of the entirety of them. This highlights difficulty of a finite being attempting to grasp the unbounded nature of an infinite one.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2020, @09:10AM
Someone said, "Bull Squirt!" Well, put that big thing into my mouth and let me have THE FIREHOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111
RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2020, @09:18AM
1. I believe in Christ; he is my King!
With all my heart to him I'll sing;
I'll raise my voice in praise and joy,
In grand amens my tongue employ.
I believe in Christ; he is God's Son.
On earth to dwell his soul did come.
He healed the sick; the dead he raised.
Good works were his; his name be praised.
2. I believe in Christ; oh blessed name!
As Mary's Son he came to reign
'Mid mortal men, his earthly kin,
To save them from the woes of sin.
I believe in Christ, who marked the path,
Who did gain all his Father hath,
Who said to men: "Come, follow me,
That ye, my friends, with God may be."
3. I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God!
My feet he plants on gospel sod.
I'll worship him with all my might;
He is the source of truth and light.
I believe in Christ; he ransoms me.
From Satan's grasp he sets me free,
And I shall live with joy and love
In his eternal courts above.
4. I believe in Christ; he stands supreme!
From him I'll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain,
His voice is heard: "Ye shall obtain."
I believe in Christ; so come what may,
With him I'll stand in that great day
When on this earth he comes again
To rule among the sons of men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2020, @10:22PM (1 child)
is 7. tune in tomorrow for another exiting random number. sneak preview: 7.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 22 2020, @11:38PM
Awww, c'mon! You could've used the Spoiler tag. Jeez.