On 2012-10-21, David Kirkby <david.kir...@onetel.net> wrote: > On 21 October 2012 12:03, LFS <lfahlb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hiya Dave, >> What would the line of code look like to reseed it with the epoch thing each >> time I call it? >> Thanks so much, >> >> Linda > > > http://www.sagemath.org/doc/reference/sage/misc/randstate.html > > says > > If set_random_seed() is called with no arguments, then a new seed is > automatically selected. On operating systems that support it, the new > seed comes from os.urandom(); this is intended to be a truly random > (not pseudo-random), cryptographically secure number. (Whether it is > actually cryptographically secure depends on operating system details > that are outside the control of Sage.) > > > I tend to disagree with what's quoted there. The seed will be truely > random, but the sequence of numbers will not be. They will still be > preudo random.
the paragraph above only claims the randomness of the seed, rather than of the whole sequence. > > Sage no doubt has endless ways of generating random numbers, and that > method might only work for one or more of the RNGs, but not all of > them. > > > Dave >>> >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sage-support" group. >> To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en. >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-support" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support?hl=en.
