Re:The definitive guide to “modulo bias” and how to avoid it...
by anomalroil on Thursday September 15, 2022 @04:37PM
(#32858123)
Speaking of Monte Carlo, here's a paper about how using bad randomness can lead to wrong simulation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2992609/
(or should I call them _biased_ ones?)
Re:The definitive guide to “modulo bias” and how to avoid it...
by turtledragonfly on Thursday September 15, 2022 @05:08PM
(#32858473)
And as a counterpoint, if you use a well-chosen deterministic sequence, it can make some Monte Carlo methods produce better results faster than true randomness would (quasirandom sequences and all that).
So, interestingly, "bad randomness" =/= deterministic.
(not that you were claiming that, just adding this subtlety to the mix)
Re:The definitive guide to “modulo bias” and how to avoid it...
by the_af on Thursday September 15, 2022 @12:27PM
(#32854418)
> Thus, in almost all computer programming languages, "Random" means deterministic random values.
Yes, I know how pseudo RNG works.
I just didn't realize this ran counter to doing secure crypto, so thanks for the explanation anyway :)
If you want cryptographically secure random numbers, you typically call a function with a different name, one that has "secure" or "crypto" in a name somewhere (e.g., in the function or containing module/package).
This is a convention from the 1950s and has been consistent ever since. That naming-convention ship sailed before many of us were born.