World: r3wp
[Core] Discuss core issues
older newer | first last |
Reichart 8-May-2008 [10513] | Keno, yup....keno programmers are like script kiddies... |
Gabriele 9-May-2008 [10514] | lol, so if you pick each character separately you don't make 60 ** 8 different password? Geomol, you're being really funny. I guess this is what happens when religion takes the place of logic. |
Geomol 9-May-2008 [10515x4] | :-) No, it's what happens, when insight takes the place of ignorance. |
(For the record, I'm not religious.) | |
so if you pick each character separately you don't make 60 ** 8 different password? If I, as a human, pick each char separately, I can make 60 ** 8 different passwords. If I make a digital computer do it based on 2 ** 32 integer pseudo-randomness, I can't! If you disagree, then show me. Doc seems to get it now, so I'm not completely alone with my insight. | |
I'm not fair using the word "ignorance". I don't think, you are. I base my conclusion on the following: See the password generator as a black box, that you feed with an integer, and out come a password. The integer input has 2 ** 32 different combinations and is used for the random/seed. Out come a password, and there can only be 2 ** 32 different passwords coming out at most. It doesn't matter, how the algorithm is constructed, if you put time delay in, call random or random/seed more than once, etc, as long as you don't get other input as the first integer. This is basic in information theory. And it's related to the determinism in digital computing. | |
Dockimbel 9-May-2008 [10519] | Given a good algorithm (like Mersenne twister), and a true random generator for seeding (like hardware sensors) a computer could cover the 60**8 range. A humain brain, even given enough time, can't (I'm talking about generating random combinations, not using loops to generate every single combination). Even worse, humain results would show heterogeneous distribution of results, while computer will give a uniform distribution. So in that case, computers would give you better randomness than analog brains. |
Geomol 9-May-2008 [10520] | Yes, valid points, but it's not what I described at first. If I should construct a random password given the rules, my output will land in a pool of 60 ** 8 possible passwords. I don't have to actual do it. The statement holds anyway. If a computer should construct a random password given the rules (using any deterministic computer and any algorithm, but only with a 32-bit integer input, as in the case of REBOL random/seed), the output will land i a pool of 2 ** 32 possible passwords at most. Of course we can change the frame and get a better result from the computer, but then we change the 'experiment'. In general, I would say the pool from human thoughts and decisions is infinite. It's not from a deterministic computer. So we need true random input and true analog computing with infinite states, if we want our computers to be as good as our brains. |
Dockimbel 9-May-2008 [10521x2] | Why restricting the computer to 32bits input only, when you can feed it with gigabits of inputs ? That's not a fair comparaison. |
In general, I would say the pool from human thoughts and decisions is infinite . That needs to be proved. It can be very high without being infinite. | |
Geomol 9-May-2008 [10523] | In my password generator, how would you feed it with more input? |
Dockimbel 9-May-2008 [10524] | By using a better than REBOL default RANDOM function and using a source of true randomness for seeding. |
Geomol 9-May-2008 [10525] | That needs to be proved. It can be very high without being infinite. I think, it's proven by quantum mechanics in the number of possible outcome from a wave equation. |
Dockimbel 9-May-2008 [10526] | Well...the magical "quantum" is back again. :-) Sorry, but you still didn't prove anything...Do we need to get back to how a neuron fires ? Show me any experiment that has been done proving that neuron's firing is not deterministic (meaning it can be predicted knowing the inputs). |
Geomol 9-May-2008 [10527] | How do I use a better random function, now that it's a routine programmed in REBOL? I could get the source of a better routine and implement it myself. That will give me a better result, yes. I'm not going to do that, as my current routine is good enough for the purpose. How do I access a source of true randomness from within REBOL? random.org has been suggested. Other ways? |
Dockimbel 9-May-2008 [10528x3] | Maybe this thread should be move in another channel |
can = can't | |
reading mouse moves is usually a good source for seeding | |
Geomol 9-May-2008 [10531] | Moving to chat |
Gregg 9-May-2008 [10532] | A long time ago, I remember reading something where the author suggested, as a shared seed, using a substring of PI. |
Gabriele 10-May-2008 [10533x5] | a human picking chars "randomly" will most likely not be random. sadly, i guess we're not going to be able to do a test with a few million people to get a decent sample. |
about 2 ** 32, that's a limitation of *your* algorithm, not RANDOM. indeed, if you don't reset the seed each time, and use random/secure, you probably get all of the possible passwords (and very likely more than humans would pick). besides, it is not proven that random/seed only takes 32 bits of data when seeded with a date!. (C rand() is most likely 32 bit, but random/secure could be using more than that.) | |
if you feed a human a 32 bit int and ask him/her to get you back a password, and it has to give you the same password for the same int, then how many password would the user give you? | |
besides... neurons are know to only be able to fire or not to fire. they are digital, not analog. if the input is above the threashold, the neuron fires. otherwise it does not fire. | |
wave equations have nothing to do with the human brain as far as we know it. if you know more, you should publish an article somewhere, as that would be a breakthrough. | |
btiffin 10-May-2008 [10538] | A psych prof I knew, wrote papers on the quantum clock in our brains. Google "kristofferson professor rate of tone and brain clock" for some references to his research. Sorry for clogging Core. But yeah, his experiments concluded that we definetly think in "waves"; some events go undetected if they occur between 'brain ticks'. He couldn't explain the 'how or why', but he could measure the effect. |
eFishAnt 18-May-2008 [10539x2] | As better at REBOL I am getting, I am trying to find the trick to rename the title of the Console window itself. I am glad I can probe system, but I just haven't probed it in the right orafice... |
Right now it is "REBOL/View" on the console title bar. I know I'm gonna be embarrased when I find out what it is... | |
[unknown: 5] 18-May-2008 [10541] | I do that via winapi calls currently. |
Graham 18-May-2008 [10542] | I asked Carl years ago to allow us to change this within REBOL ... he agreed but has not done this. So, I too use Winapi calls. |
eFishAnt 18-May-2008 [10543] | shucks. |
Graham 18-May-2008 [10544x2] | win-lib: make object! [ user-lib: load/library %user32.dll SetWindowText: make routine! [ handle [integer!] Title [string!] return: [integer!] ] user-lib "SetWindowTextA" set 'WindowTitle func [ Title [string!] ] [ SetWindowText get-modes system/ports/system 'window Title ] ] |
Actually maybe it was Terry that wrote this .. can't recall now. | |
Oldes 19-May-2008 [10546] | Use Resource Hacker http://www.angusj.com/resourcehacker/to change the title and or icons. |
Robert 19-May-2008 [10547x2] | Is there a way to get MAX-INT from Rebol? |
I know it's 2 ** 31 - 1 but any other way? Is there an unsigned version as well? | |
Geomol 19-May-2008 [10549] | >> to integer! #7fffffff == 2147483647 No unsigned version directly. You might be able to make code, that can implement unsigned int. |
sqlab 19-May-2008 [10550] | Looks my solution for changing the name.) |
Graham 20-May-2008 [10551x2] | Google api client libraries ... http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/clientlibs.html |
No REBOL included of course | |
BrianH 20-May-2008 [10553] | Google is really specific about which languages it will support itself - they won't even let their employees use alternate languages for Google products. REBOL's niche is taken up by Python there. Nothing stopping you from cloning one of the official APIs for a third-party API though. |
Robert 24-May-2008 [10554] | Hi, how can I avoid to get back NONE for something like this: a: compose [ (if 0 > 1 ["b"]) ] I just want to get nothing back, like the parens were never there. |
Dockimbel 24-May-2008 [10555] | >> void: [ ] >> a: compose [ (either 0 > 1 ["b"][void]) ] == [ ] |
Robert 24-May-2008 [10556] | Ok... very tricky. ;-) |
Dockimbel 24-May-2008 [10557x2] | if you want to hide the "tricky part" : |
>> if*: func [cond body][either cond body [[ ]]] >> a: compose [ (if* 0 > 1 ["b"]) ] == [ ] | |
Henrik 24-May-2008 [10559] | >> a: compose [(either 0 > 1 ["b"][])] == [] |
[unknown: 5] 24-May-2008 [10560x2] | Does protect work inside an object's context? For example if i have a: context [b: 0] can I then protect 'b from being changed? |
I might be able to figure this out if I take a look at the protect-system. | |
ChristianE 24-May-2008 [10562] | In cases like this, Robert, I usually use somthing like >> pass: func [value] [any [value []]] which makes code somewhat readable >> a: compose [ (pass if 0 > 1 ["b"]) ] |
older newer | first last |