[Gllug] entropykey: why did nobody ever mention this thing before?

[- Tethys]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Jones <rich at annexia.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 10:32:19AM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
>> However I'm suspicious that the numbers are really going to be random.
>
> By "really", I mean "in a way that would convince physicists and
> philosophers", not would pass a chi-square test.

Philosophers? Huh? What on earth do they need a good source of random
numbers for? I'd say the true test is whether or not it would convince
a cryptographer.

I haven't been keeping up with developments lately, but are there tests
that are deemed sufficient? The web page mentioned passing the Diehard
tests, but I don't know if they're deemed a sufficienty good indicator
of randomness or not.

Tet

-- 
“It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be
wrong.” -- Chris Torek
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug