> On Jan 11, 2016, at 23:04, Dale Erwin <dale.er...@casaerwin.org> wrote: > > I submit that no set of computer-generated numbers is truly random. > Pseudo-random is the best you can hope for.
True if it's strictly an algorithmic process. Not necessarily true if you introduce variability from external sources [ping or response time on the network, or stock market fluctuations for example]. Pseudo random implies repeatability. In a prior life I came up with a scheme for a pseudorandom generator that used computer hardware measured values determined at power on to generate a non-repeatable seed. I think we are converging on violent agreement! — jt - j...@jt-mj.net If it screams, it's not food... Yet. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
