News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on PCG – A Family of Better Random Number Generators.

Re:PCG – A Family of Better Random Number Generators by trebor on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @12:33PM (#8591034)
I'd like to see more substantiation than the guy's own site. The PCG "family" is omitted from every graph that I saw. Also, from my own testing, Mersenne Twister appears to have enough randomness for non-cryptographic purposes. I've never had particularly predictable sequences from it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PCG – A Family of Better Random Number Generators by Uzomidy on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @12:43PM (#8591092)
The graphs of failures don't show the PCG scheme because their number of failures is zero.

The performance graphs show a whole bunch of PCG generators.

You absolutely can predict the Mersenne Twister after 624 outputs (there are several blog posts out there). The Mersenne Twister is also huge (2K of state) and some people claim that as a result it's not cache friendly.

But yes, it's a new thing, so it needs people to look at it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:PCG – A Family of Better Random Number Generators by pkhuong on Tuesday November 11, 2014 @02:51PM (#8591775)
How would you test for bad sequences? Does that method manage to flag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RANDU?
[ Parent | on HN ]