I am struggling to find a way to generate a random number within a given interval in PostScript.
Basically PostScript has three functions to help you generate (pseudo-)random numbers. Those are rand, srand and rrand.
The later two are for passing a seed to the number generator to be able to reproduce specific results. At least that´s what I understood they are for. Anyway they don´t seem suitable for my case.
So rand seems to be the only function I can use to generate a random number, but...
rand returns a random integer in the range 0 to 231 − 1 (From the PostScript Language Reference, page 637 (651 in the PDF))
This is far beyond the the interval I´m looking for. I am more interested in values up to small thousands, maybe 10.000 or something like that and small float values, up to 100, all with the lower limit of 0.
I thought I could just narrow my numbers down by simple divisions and extracting the root but that tends to give me unusable small values in quite a lot cases. I am wondering if there are robust ways to either shrink a large number down to what I need or, I´d prefer that, only generate numbers in the desired interval.
Besides: while-loops are not possible in PostScript, otherwise I´d have written a function to generate numbers until they fit in my interval.
Any hints on what to look for breaking numbers down into my interval?
mod is often good enough and it's fast. But you may get a more uniform distribution by using floating-point ops.
rand 16#7fffffff div 100 mul cvi
This is because mod discards the upper bits of the input. And the PRNG is usually trying to randomize over all the bits. By scaling down then up, they all contribute something in the way of rounding effects.
Just use the modulo operator to get it down to the size you want:
GS>rand 100 mod stack
7
Related
I need to generate a random number between 1 and 52, for a card game (I know how to).
I could either use random (52) to directly reference each card in the pack, or I could do random(4) and random(13) to get the Suit and Value separately.
I can get the suit and value from the number between 1 and 52 with r div 13 and r mod 13 + 1.
But I am wondering if generating two random numbers will affect the "randomness" of the outcome. As the numbers generates will be pseudo random numbers, so that could affect it in some way?
And if the low numbers 4 and 13 vs 52 don't make a difference, is there a value where this could become an issue?
If you're using a low-quality PRNG (like your average rand() implementation: Sure it'll affect stuff, but not in a way which is easily predictable without knowing your exact PRNG implementation and your exact code. Either one might be "better" than the other, for some value of "better".
If you're using a good-quality PRNG: Nah, doesn't matter. Go wild.
This question is NOT about how to use any language to generate a random number between any interval. It is about generating either 0 or 1.
I understand that many random generator algorithm manipulate the very basic random(0 or 1) function and take seed from users and use an algorithm to generate various random numbers as needed.
The question is that how the CPU generate either 0 or 1? If I throw a coin, I can generate head or tailer. That's because I physically throw a coin and let the nature decide. But how does CPU do it? There must be an action that the CPU does (like throwing a coin) to get either 0 or 1 randomly, right?
Could anyone tell me about it?
Thanks
(This has several facets and thus several algorithms. Keep in mind that there are many different forms of randomness used for different purposes, but I understand your question in the way that you are interested in actual randomness used for cryptography.)
The fundamental problem here is that computers are (mostly) deterministic machines. Given the same input in the same state they always yield the same result. However, there are a few ways of actually gathering entropy:
User input. Since users bring outside input into the system you can take that to derive some bits from that. Similar to how you could use radioactive decay or line noise.
Network activity. Again, an outside source of stuff.
Generally interrupts (which kinda include the first two).
As alluded to in the first item, noise from peripherals, such as audio input or a webcam can be used.
There is dedicated hardware that can generate a few hundred MiB of randomness per second. Usually they give you random numbers directly instead of their internal entropy, though.
How exactly you derive bits from that is up to you but you could use time between events, or actual content from the events, etc. – generally eliminating bias from entropy sources isn't easy or trivial and a lot of thought and algorithmic work goes into that (in the case of the aforementioned special hardware this is all done in hardware and the code using it doesn't need to care about it).
Once you have a pool of actually random bits you can just use them as random numbers (/dev/random on Linux does that). But this has downsides, since there is usually little actual entropy and possibly a higher demand for random numbers. So you can invent algorithms to “stretch” that initial randomness in a manner that makes it still impossible or at least very difficult to predict anything about following numbers (/dev/urandom on Linux or both /dev/random and /dev/urandom on FreeBSD do that). Fortuna and Yarrow are so-called cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generators and designed with that in mind. You still have a very good guarantee about the quality of random numbers you generate, but have many more before your entropy pool runs out.
In any case, the CPU itself cannot give you a random 0 or 1. There's a lot more involved and this usually includes the complete computer system or special hardware built for that purpose.
There is also a second class of computational randomness: Plain vanilla pseudo-random number generators (PRNGs). What I said earlier about determinism – this is the embodiment of it. Given the same so-called seed a PRNG will yield the exact same sequence of numbers every time¹. While this sounds idiotic it has practical benefits.
Suppose you run a simulation involving lots of random numbers, maybe to simulate interaction between molecules or atoms that involve certain probabilities and unpredictable behaviour. In science you want results anyone can independently verify, given the same setup and procedure (or, with computing, the same algorithms). If you used actual randomness the only option you have would be to save every single random number used to make sure others can replicate the results independently.
But with a PRNG all you need to save is the seed and remember what algorithm you used. Others can then get the exact same sequence of pseudo-random numbers independently. Very nice property to have :-)
Footnotes
¹ This even includes the CSPRNGs mentioned above, but they are designed to be used in a special way that includes regular re-seeding with entropy to overcome that problem.
A CPU can only generate a uniform random number, U(0,1), which happens to range from 0 to 1. So mathematically, it would be defined as a random variable U in the range [0,1]. Examples of random draws of a U(0,1) random number in the range 0 to 1 would be 0.28100002, 0.34522, 0.7921, etc. The probability of any value between 0 and 1 is equal, i.e., they are equiprobable.
You can generate binary random variates that are either 0 or 1 by setting a random draw of U(0,1) to a 0 if U(0,1)<=0.5 and 1 if U(0,1)>0.5, since in theory there will be an equal number of random draws of U(0,1) below 0.5 and above 0.5.
I'm trying to seed a random number generator with the output of a hash. Currently I'm computing a SHA-1 hash, converting it to a giant integer, and feeding it to srand to initialize the RNG. This is so that I can get a predictable set of random numbers for an set of infinite cartesian coordinates (I'm hashing the coordinates).
I'm wondering whether Kernel::srand actually has a maximum value that it'll take, after which it truncates it in some way. The docs don't really make this obvious - they just say "a number".
I'll try to figure it out myself, but I'm assuming somebody out there has run into this already.
Knowing what programmers are like, it probably just calls libc's srand(). Either way, it's probably limited to 2^32-1, 2^31-1, 2^16-1, or 2^15-1.
There's also a danger that the value is clipped when cast from a biginteger to a C int/long, instead of only taking the low-order bits.
An easy test is to seed with 1 and take the first output. Then, seed with 2i+1 for i in [1..64] or so, take the first output of each, and compare. If you get a match for some i=n and all greater is, then it's probably doing arithmetic modulo 2n.
Note that the random number generator is almost certainly limited to 32 or 48 bits of entropy anyway, so there's little point seeding it with a huge value, and an attacker can reasonably easily predict future outputs given past outputs (and an "attacker" could simply be a player on a public nethack server).
EDIT: So I was wrong.
According to the docs for Kernel::rand(),
Ruby currently uses a modified Mersenne Twister with a period of 2**19937-1.
This means it's not just a call to libc's rand(). The Mersenne Twister is statistically superior (but not cryptographically secure). But anyway.
Testing using Kernel::srand(0); Kernel::sprintf("%x",Kernel::rand(2**32)) for various output sizes (2*16, 2*32, 2*36, 2*60, 2*64, 2*32+1, 2*35, 2*34+1), a few things are evident:
It figures out how many bits it needs (number of bits in max-1).
It generates output in groups of 32 bits, most-significant-bits-first, and drops the top bits (i.e. 0x[r0][r1][r2][r3][r4] with the top bits masked off).
If it's not less than max, it does some sort of retry. It's not obvious what this is from the output.
If it is less than max, it outputs the result.
I'm not sure why 2*32+1 and 2*64+1 are special (they produce the same output from Kernel::rand(2**1024) so probably have the exact same state) — I haven't found another collision.
The good news is that it doesn't simply clip to some arbitrary maximum (i.e. passing in huge numbers isn't equivalent to passing in 2**31-1), which is the most obvious thing that can go wrong. Kernel::srand() also returns the previous seed, which appears to be 128-bit, so it seems likely to be safe to pass in something large.
EDIT 2: Of course, there's no guarantee that the output will be reproducible between different Ruby versions (the docs merely say what it "currently uses"; apparently this was initially committed in 2002). Java has several portable deterministic PRNGs (SecureRandom.getInstance("SHA1PRNG","SUN"), albeit slow); I'm not aware of something similar for Ruby.
I would like an algorithm for a function that takes n integers and returns one integer. For small changes in the input, the resulting integer should vary greatly. Even though I've taken a number of courses in math, I have not used that knowledge very much and now I need some help...
An important property of this function should be that if it is used with coordinate pairs as input and the result is plotted (as a grayscale value for example) on an image, any repeating patterns should only be visible if the image is very big.
I have experimented with various algorithms for pseudo-random numbers with little success and finally it struck me that md5 almost meets my criteria, except that it is not for numbers (at least not from what I know). That resulted in something like this Python prototype (for n = 2, it could easily be changed to take a list of integers of course):
import hashlib
def uniqnum(x, y):
return int(hashlib.md5(str(x) + ',' + str(y)).hexdigest()[-6:], 16)
But obviously it feels wrong to go over strings when both input and output are integers. What would be a good replacement for this implementation (in pseudo-code, python, or whatever language)?
A "hash" is the solution created to solve exactly the problem you are describing. See wikipedia's article
Any hash function you use will be nice; hash functions tend to be judged based on these criteria:
The degree to which they prevent collisions (two separate inputs producing the same output) -- a by-product of this is the degree to which the function minimizes outputs that may never be reached from any input.
The uniformity the distribution of its outputs given a uniformly distributed set of inputs
The degree to which small changes in the input create large changes in the output.
(see perfect hash function)
Given how hard it is to create a hash function that maximizes all of these criteria, why not just use one of the most commonly used and relied-on existing hash functions there already are?
From what it seems, turning integers into strings almost seems like another layer of encryption! (which is good for your purposes, I'd assume)
However, your question asks for hash functions that deal specifically with numbers, so here we go.
Hash functions that work over the integers
If you want to borrow already-existing algorithms, you may want to dabble in pseudo-random number generators
One simple one is the middle square method:
Take a digit number
Square it
Chop off the digits and leave the middle digits with the same length as your original.
ie,
1111 => 01234321 => 2342
so, 1111 would be "hashed" to 2342, in the middle square method.
This way isn't that effective, but for a few number of hashes, this has very low collision rates, a uniform distribution, and great chaos-potential (small changes => big changes). But if you have many values, time to look for something else...
The grand-daddy of all feasibly efficient and simple random number generators is the (Mersenne Twister)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_twister]. In fact, an implementation is probably out there for every programming language imaginable. Your hash "input" is something that will be called a "seed" in their terminology.
In conclusion
Nothing wrong with string-based hash functions
If you want to stick with the integers and be fancy, try using your number as a seed for a pseudo-random number generator.
Hashing fits your requirements perfectly. If you really don't want to use strings, find a Hash library that will take numbers or binary data. But using strings here looks OK to me.
Bob Jenkins' mix function is a classic choice, at when n=3.
As others point out, hash functions do exactly what you want. Hashes take bytes - not character strings - and return bytes, and converting between integers and bytes is, of course, simple. Here's an example python function that works on 32 bit integers, and outputs a 32 bit integer:
import hashlib
import struct
def intsha1(ints):
input = struct.pack('>%di' % len(ints), *ints)
output = hashlib.sha1(input).digest()
return struct.unpack('>i', output[:4])
It can, of course, be easily adapted to work with different length inputs and outputs.
Have a look at this, may be you can be inspired
Chaotic system
In chaotic dynamics, small changes vary results greatly.
A x-bit block cipher will take an number and convert it effectively to another number. You could combine (sum/mult?) your input numbers and cipher them, or iteratively encipher each number - similar to a CBC or chained mode. Google 'format preserving encyption'. It is possible to create a 32-bit block cipher (not widely 'available') and use this to create a 'hashed' output. Main difference between hash and encryption, is that hash is irreversible.
I have an array of numbers that potentially have up to 8 decimal places and I need to find the smallest common number I can multiply them by so that they are all whole numbers. I need this so all the original numbers can all be multiplied out to the same scale and be processed by a sealed system that will only deal with whole numbers, then I can retrieve the results and divide them by the common multiplier to get my relative results.
Currently we do a few checks on the numbers and multiply by 100 or 1,000,000, but the processing done by the *sealed system can get quite expensive when dealing with large numbers so multiplying everything by a million just for the sake of it isn’t really a great option. As an approximation lets say that the sealed algorithm gets 10 times more expensive every time you multiply by a factor of 10.
What is the most efficient algorithm, that will also give the best possible result, to accomplish what I need and is there a mathematical name and/or formula for what I’m need?
*The sealed system isn’t really sealed. I own/maintain the source code for it but its 100,000 odd lines of proprietary magic and it has been thoroughly bug and performance tested, altering it to deal with floats is not an option for many reasons. It is a system that creates a grid of X by Y cells, then rects that are X by Y are dropped into the grid, “proprietary magic” occurs and results are spat out – obviously this is an extremely simplified version of reality, but it’s a good enough approximation.
So far there are quiet a few good answers and I wondered how I should go about choosing the ‘correct’ one. To begin with I figured the only fair way was to create each solution and performance test it, but I later realised that pure speed wasn’t the only relevant factor – an more accurate solution is also very relevant. I wrote the performance tests anyway, but currently the I’m choosing the correct answer based on speed as well accuracy using a ‘gut feel’ formula.
My performance tests process 1000 different sets of 100 randomly generated numbers.
Each algorithm is tested using the same set of random numbers.
Algorithms are written in .Net 3.5 (although thus far would be 2.0 compatible)
I tried pretty hard to make the tests as fair as possible.
Greg – Multiply by large number
and then divide by GCD – 63
milliseconds
Andy – String Parsing
– 199 milliseconds
Eric – Decimal.GetBits – 160 milliseconds
Eric – Binary search – 32
milliseconds
Ima – sorry I couldn’t
figure out a how to implement your
solution easily in .Net (I didn’t
want to spend too long on it)
Bill – I figure your answer was pretty
close to Greg’s so didn’t implement
it. I’m sure it’d be a smidge faster
but potentially less accurate.
So Greg’s Multiply by large number and then divide by GCD” solution was the second fastest algorithm and it gave the most accurate results so for now I’m calling it correct.
I really wanted the Decimal.GetBits solution to be the fastest, but it was very slow, I’m unsure if this is due to the conversion of a Double to a Decimal or the Bit masking and shifting. There should be a
similar usable solution for a straight Double using the BitConverter.GetBytes and some knowledge contained here: http://blogs.msdn.com/bclteam/archive/2007/05/29/bcl-refresher-floating-point-types-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-inbar-gazit-matthew-greig.aspx but my eyes just kept glazing over every time I read that article and I eventually ran out of time to try to implement a solution.
I’m always open to other solutions if anyone can think of something better.
I'd multiply by something sufficiently large (100,000,000 for 8 decimal places), then divide by the GCD of the resulting numbers. You'll end up with a pile of smallest integers that you can feed to the other algorithm. After getting the result, reverse the process to recover your original range.
Multiple all the numbers by 10
until you have integers.
Divide
by 2,3,5,7 while you still have all
integers.
I think that covers all cases.
2.1 * 10/7 -> 3
0.008 * 10^3/2^3 -> 1
That's assuming your multiplier can be a rational fraction.
If you want to find some integer N so that N*x is also an exact integer for a set of floats x in a given set are all integers, then you have a basically unsolvable problem. Suppose x = the smallest positive float your type can represent, say it's 10^-30. If you multiply all your numbers by 10^30, and then try to represent them in binary (otherwise, why are you even trying so hard to make them ints?), then you'll lose basically all the information of the other numbers due to overflow.
So here are two suggestions:
If you have control over all the related code, find another
approach. For example, if you have some function that takes only
int's, but you have floats, and you want to stuff your floats into
the function, just re-write or overload this function to accept
floats as well.
If you don't have control over the part of your system that requires
int's, then choose a precision to which you care about, accept that
you will simply have to lose some information sometimes (but it will
always be "small" in some sense), and then just multiply all your
float's by that constant, and round to the nearest integer.
By the way, if you're dealing with fractions, rather than float's, then it's a different game. If you have a bunch of fractions a/b, c/d, e/f; and you want a least common multiplier N such that N*(each fraction) = an integer, then N = abc / gcd(a,b,c); and gcd(a,b,c) = gcd(a, gcd(b, c)). You can use Euclid's algorithm to find the gcd of any two numbers.
Greg: Nice solution but won't calculating a GCD that's common in an array of 100+ numbers get a bit expensive? And how would you go about that? Its easy to do GCD for two numbers but for 100 it becomes more complex (I think).
Evil Andy: I'm programing in .Net and the solution you pose is pretty much a match for what we do now. I didn't want to include it in my original question cause I was hoping for some outside the box (or my box anyway) thinking and I didn't want to taint peoples answers with a potential solution. While I don't have any solid performance statistics (because I haven't had any other method to compare it against) I know the string parsing would be relatively expensive and I figured a purely mathematical solution could potentially be more efficient.
To be fair the current string parsing solution is in production and there have been no complaints about its performance yet (its even in production in a separate system in a VB6 format and no complaints there either). It's just that it doesn't feel right, I guess it offends my programing sensibilities - but it may well be the best solution.
That said I'm still open to any other solutions, purely mathematical or otherwise.
What language are you programming in? Something like
myNumber.ToString().Substring(myNumber.ToString().IndexOf(".")+1).Length
would give you the number of decimal places for a double in C#. You could run each number through that and find the largest number of decimal places(x), then multiply each number by 10 to the power of x.
Edit: Out of curiosity, what is this sealed system which you can pass only integers to?
In a loop get mantissa and exponent of each number as integers. You can use frexp for exponent, but I think bit mask will be required for mantissa. Find minimal exponent. Find most significant digits in mantissa (loop through bits looking for last "1") - or simply use predefined number of significant digits.
Your multiple is then something like 2^(numberOfDigits-minMantissa). "Something like" because I don't remember biases/offsets/ranges, but I think idea is clear enough.
So basically you want to determine the number of digits after the decimal point for each number.
This would be rather easier if you had the binary representation of the number. Are the numbers being converted from rationals or scientific notation earlier in your program? If so, you could skip the earlier conversion and have a much easier time. Otherwise you might want to pass each number to a function in an external DLL written in C, where you could work with the floating point representation directly. Or you could cast the numbers to decimal and do some work with Decimal.GetBits.
The fastest approach I can think of in-place and following your conditions would be to find the smallest necessary power-of-ten (or 2, or whatever) as suggested before. But instead of doing it in a loop, save some computation by doing binary search on the possible powers. Assuming a maximum of 8, something like:
int NumDecimals( double d )
{
// make d positive for clarity; it won't change the result
if( d<0 ) d=-d;
// now do binary search on the possible numbers of post-decimal digits to
// determine the actual number as quickly as possible:
if( NeedsMore( d, 10e4 ) )
{
// more than 4 decimals
if( NeedsMore( d, 10e6 ) )
{
// > 6 decimal places
if( NeedsMore( d, 10e7 ) ) return 10e8;
return 10e7;
}
else
{
// <= 6 decimal places
if( NeedsMore( d, 10e5 ) ) return 10e6;
return 10e5;
}
}
else
{
// <= 4 decimal places
// etc...
}
}
bool NeedsMore( double d, double e )
{
// check whether the representation of D has more decimal points than the
// power of 10 represented in e.
return (d*e - Math.Floor( d*e )) > 0;
}
PS: you wouldn't be passing security prices to an option pricing engine would you? It has exactly the flavor...