View Single Post
 2004-11-22, 05:33 #4 shaxper   Nov 2004 2·7 Posts Update Hey Makul, Thanks for the encouragement. :) BTW, further thought on the problem suggested that both numbers (q,r) should be irrational. Here's a better scheme, based on the same concept. ---------------------------------------------------------- To create a "random number," let a, b = irrational numbers, constants (like pi, e, c, or sqrt(2)) Create, via two different statistical techniques, two "random" primes, p1, p2 q1 = p1 * a q2 = p2 * b where a = constant out to (p1) places, b = constant out to (p2) places For example, let a = 3.14, pi out to 2 places b = 1.414, sqrt(2) out to 3 places then q1 * q2 = (p1 * a) * (p2 * b) = (2 * 3.14) * (3 * 1.414) = 26.63976 It seems to me that finding the two primes (2,3) in the number 26.63976 would be very difficult if you didn't know the two schemes for creating p1 and p2 along with the two irrational constants. (And even more difficult if you invert the second constant so that a > 1, b < 1.) Any thoughts anybody? >Would these numbers be uniformally distributed? No. I don't think there is such a thing as truly random, i.e. no order at all. Therefore, the next best thing is creating a number that hides the order. >I don't think this method would work too well on a computer >since you cannot truely represent an irrational method on a >computer. Actually, that's the beauty of this scheme because the irrational number is represented out to a finite number (p1, p2) of digits. >Besides, if you can generate random primes, can't you >generate random numbers already? There's no such thing as random, so the primes you generate aren't "really" random and, therefore, neither would the numbers that this scheme generates. But, hopefully -- and this is where my knowledge falls short -- this scheme hides the order better then currently existing statistical techniques. cheers, jad Last fiddled with by shaxper on 2004-11-22 at 05:39 Reason: correction