You're saying something being reproducible implies that it is not pseudo-random. This is a definition of pseudo-random that exists only in your head.
The first sentence of the wikipedia entry on pseudo-randomness is:
"A pseudorandom sequence of numbers is one that appears to be statistically random, despite having been produced by a completely deterministic and repeatable process."
That misses a factor called good enough, or degree of predictability. Ultimately everything eventually becomes predictable if analyzed deeply enough. Another word for that is entropy. That is what my linked comment referred to. For security concerns, such as PRNGs, the appearance of randomness is not enough.
This is why security analysis requires a higher threshold than software employment at large.
And this still wrong for the same reasons. See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44521194
You're saying something being reproducible implies that it is not pseudo-random. This is a definition of pseudo-random that exists only in your head.
The first sentence of the wikipedia entry on pseudo-randomness is:
"A pseudorandom sequence of numbers is one that appears to be statistically random, despite having been produced by a completely deterministic and repeatable process."
That misses a factor called good enough, or degree of predictability. Ultimately everything eventually becomes predictable if analyzed deeply enough. Another word for that is entropy. That is what my linked comment referred to. For security concerns, such as PRNGs, the appearance of randomness is not enough.
This is why security analysis requires a higher threshold than software employment at large.
3 replies →