I hope it's not too obvious a question: is there a random number generation algorithm that doesn't depend on previously returned values, so that I can get (for example) the 50th number in the sequence, without computing the previous 49?
The reason is that I am making roguelike that will be persistent (so that I can recreate the exact same level from the same seed), but to compute certain features of each level, I don't want to have to "compute" all previous features just to get the random number generator to the correct "state" of having been used, for example, 100 times so far. I would like to be able to query the 101st random number without determining previous values so that the program can create level features separately.
You can encrypt ordinary sequence number [1..N] with any cipher,
and by this way - generate unique pseudorandom value for each SeqNo.
If you use a linear congruential random number generator, it is trivial to compute the $n$-th element generated from a given seed. But it is probably easier just to stash away the state at the "interesting" points of the game.
OTOH, if you want to "restart" the game at a certain point, you'll presumably want to be able to recreate the dungeon's features, but (due to different player actions) the RNG usage will be different from then on. I.e., if started at the same point, if I shoot twice at a monster the RNG will be used more times than if I just run away; the next item generated will get different values. Perhaps what you really want is several independent random number streams, and saving the states as needed?
There are lots of roguelike games around, mostly open source. Some are limited/small (from "build a game in a day" sort of competitions), and might make a good starting point for you. Why start your own, and not hack on an existing one?
Related
I read that seeds are used to initialize random number generators. But seems like the randomness of the seed doesn't matter much for getting good randomness from the generator. So I want to understand what is a seed actually? Why is it called so? And lastly why time in a computer system is used to generate such seeds?
A pseudo-random number generator produces a sequence of numbers. It isn't truly random, but generally a mathematical calculation which produces an output that matches some desirable distribution, and without obvious patterns. In order to produce such a sequence, there must be state stored for the generator to be able to generate the next number in that sequence. The state is updated each time using some part of the output from the previous step.
Seeding explicitly initialises this state. A 'seed' is a starting point, from which something grows. In this case, a sequence of numbers.
This can be used either to always generate the same sequence (by using a known constant seed), which is useful for having deterministic behaviour. This is good for debugging, for some network applications, cryptography, etc.
Or, in situations where you want the behaviour to be unpredictable (always different each time you run a program, a card game perhaps), you can seed with a number likely to be continually changing, such as time.
The 'randomness' of the sequence does not depend on the seed chosen, though it does depend on not reseeding the sequence.
I want to set up "public lottery", in which everyone can see the selection is random and fair. If I only needed one bit, I would use, for example, the LSB of the closing Dow Jones index for that day. The problem is, I need 32 bits. I need a source that is:
available daily
visible to the public throughout the world
not manipulable (by me or anyone else)
unbiased
simple
I suppose I could just pick 32 stocks or stock-indices and use the LSB of each, that would be at least difficult to manipulate, and run them through some hash to eliminate any bias toward 0, but that doesn't really qualify as "simple". Other thoughts: some feed of meteorological or seismological data. That would be more difficult to manipulate (much easier to buy a share of stock than to cause an earthquake) but harder to authenticate (since there aren't armies of auditors watching weather data).
Any suggestions?
Check out http://www.random.org/ They have a section for Third-Party Draw Service
The Third-Party Draw Service is useful for people who operate raffles,
sweepstakes, promotional giveaways and other lottery type services
professionally. In a similar fashion to a certified official,
RANDOM.ORG acts as an unbiased third party who conducts the drawings
in a manner that is guaranteed to be fair and truly random. The
drawings are made using true randomness that comes from atmospheric
noise, which for many purposes is better than the pseudo-random number
algorithms typically used in computer programs.
Check out the Public Records for details about recent drawings held
with the service.
This sounds like what you are looking for, but you would end up having to rely on random.org for the numbers.
The part "visible to the public throughout the world" is the trickiest part in my opinion.
An excellent source of really random numbers is the noise on a webcam (or any other CCD camera). This noise is caused by quantum fluctuation of electron temperature on the CCD plate, so it's truly random.
You could use a picture from a publicly available webcam, but it's hard to find one with a closed shutter... You could set one up and make it available yourself, or you could use one that monitors some meteorological event and subtract a time-averaged image every day.
I hope this is simple enough!
Look at the XKCD GeoHashing algorithm.
MD5(Date, Dow Jones Opening)
Depends how "simple" you want.
I would take a large set of unrelated inputs. You could include some or all of these:
Stock prices (preferably from multiple locations, e.g. Last digit of Dow Jones + last digit of FTSE)
Last digit of the reading from a publicly-visible digital thermometer (easy to find in large cities)
The date
MD5 sum of the current google.com logo image
Name of top-billed guest on today's episode of <insert name of TV talk show here>
Other public lotteries
Concatenate all of these into one large string and apply a cryptographic hash function to it.
The hash will not increase the total entropy, but what it will do is make the output harder to manipulate (because the attacker would need to manipulate many inputs simultaneously.)
Now just take the first 32 bits of the hash.
Separate the non deterministic from the random use a third party service that streams random number sets with a sn assigned to each set.
you set up the number of bits and the number of digits in sn.
Now it streams in random sets with assigned sn in a loop the size of your sn. Save it and you get a batch set of numbers that you put out for public record
Now you can chose a smaller number that doesn't need to be random, just non deterministic to pick the single set of numbers
I've heard people being warned all over the place not to rely on a language's random() function to generate a random number or string sequence "for security reasons." Java even has a SecureRandom class. Why is this?
When people talk about predicting the output of a random number generator, they don't even need to get the actual "next number". Even something subtle like noticing that the random numbers aren't evenly distributed, or that they never produce the same number twice in a row, or that "bit 5 is always set", can go a long way towards turning an attack based on guessing a "random" number from taking years, to taking days.
There is a tradeoff, generally, too. Without specific hardware to do it, generating large quantities of random numbers quickly can be really hard, since there isn't enough "randomness" available to the computer so it has to fake it.
If you're not using the randomness for security (cryptography, passwords, etc), but instead for things like simulations or numerical work, then it doesn't matter too much if they're predictable, only that they're statistically random.
Almost every random number generator is 'pseudo random' in that it uses a table of random numbers or a predictable formula. A seed is sometimes used to "start" the random sequence at a specific point, e.g. seedRandom(timer).
This was especially prevalent in the days of BAsIC programming, because it's random number generator always started at exactly the same sequence of numbers, making it unusable for any kind of GUID generation.
Back in the day, the Z-80 microprocessor had a truly random number generator, although it was only a number between 0 and 127. It used a processor cycle function and was unpredictable.
Pseudo-random numbers that can be determined in advance can lead to security holes that are vulnerable to a random number generator attack.
Predictability of a random number is a big issue. Most "random" functions derive their value from time. Given the right set of conditions you could end up with two "random" numbers of a large value that are the same.
In windows .NET world CPRNG (Cryptographically secure pseudo random number generator) can be found in System.Security.Cryptography.RandomNumberGenerator through underlying win32 APIs
In Linux there is a random "device"
Ok, so this question involves a bit of a forward. Bear with me.
There's this website random.org (and others like it) that claim to use some sort of quantum process or another to produce true random numbers.
If one were to query this site over and over and develop a massive log of true random numbers. This log is then rearranged by a program to mix it up as randomly as it can. Is the resulting output less random than when it started? By how much?
Any good/cheap further reading on the subject?
Reordering random numbers by a fixed permutation does not change the degree of randomness.
So if you have a perfect random number source, the same bits reshuffled will be equally random. This will be true if whether the "shuffle" is a fixed reordering (e.g. reversing all the bits) or a shuffle generated by a pseudo-random number generator (which is really a very obfuscated way of defining a fixed re-ordering from some initial seed).
This is provable from the underlying maths - if you reorder a set of truly independent identically distributed random variables then the resulting distribution will be the same as the one that you started with. Hence it is equally random.
However, this does not work if the shuffling is dependent on the values of the random bits in some way. If, for example, you sort the bits rather than permuting them then you won't have very good random output :-).
It would depend on how you reorder them. If you used pseudo random function to do it the results will likely be less random. If you use the true random to reorder itself it will not be more random.
One thing that people forget is the reason to use pseudo random function over some true random numbers is repeatedly and testing. If you get some unexpected results using pseudo random function will make looking at the possible problem easer.
If you have a process that needs N 'random' numbers, you can take N from the site, and use them, IN THAT ORDER, and all will be well. If you reshuffle them, you will make them less random.
If you need an ongoing supply of random numbers, then the question is the relative quality of some pseudo-random juggle of these versus what would happen if you had a true random sequence.
Since, however, linux and windows both supply real random numbers by harnessing hardware entropy, why not just use those?
Here is the facts first.
In the game of bridge there are 4
players named North, South, East and
West.
All 52 cards are dealt with 13 cards
to each player.
There is a Honour counting systems.
Ace=4 points, King=3 points, Queen=2
points and Jack=1 point.
I'm creating a "Card dealer" with constraints where for example you might say that the hand dealt to north has to have exactly 5 spades and between 13 to 16 Honour counting points, the rest of the hands are random.
How do I accomplish this without affecting the "randomness" in the best way and also having effective code?
I'm coding in C# and .Net but some idea in Pseudo code would be nice!
Since somebody already mentioned my Deal 3.1, I'd like to point out some of the optimizations I made in that code.
First of all, to get the most flexibly constraints, I wanted to add a complete programming language to my dealer, so you could generate whole libraries of constraints with different types of evaluators and rules. I used Tcl for that language, because I was already learning it for work, and, in 1994 when Deal 0.0 was released, Tcl was the easiest language to embed inside a C application.
Second, I needed the constraint language to run fairly fast. The constraints are running deep inside the loop. Quite a lot of code in my dealer is little optimizations with lookup tables and the like.
One of the most surprising and simple optimizations was to not deal cards to a seat until a constraint is checked on that seat. For example, if you want north to match constraint A and south to match constraint B, and your constraint code is:
match constraint A to north
match constraint B to south
Then only when you get to the first line do you fill out the north hand. If it fails, you reject the complete deal. If it passes, next fill out the south hand and check its constraint. If it fails, throw out the entire deal. Otherwise, finish the deal and accept it.
I found this optimization when doing some profiling and noticing that most of the time was spent in the random number generator.
There is one fancy optimization, which can work in some instances, call "smart stacking."
deal::input smartstack south balanced hcp 20 21
This generates a "factory" for the south hand which takes some time to build but which can then very quickly fill out the one hand to match this criteria. Smart stacking can only be applied to one hand per deal at a time, because of conditional probability problems. [*]
Smart stacking takes a "shape class" - in this case, "balanced," a "holding evaluator", in this case, "hcp", and a range of values for the holding evaluator. A "holding evaluator" is any evaluator which is applied to each suit and then totaled, so hcp, controls, losers, and hcp_plus_shape, etc. are all holding evalators.
For smartstacking to be effective, the holding evaluator needs to take a fairly limited set of values. How does smart stacking work? That might be a bit more than I have time to post here, but it's basically a huge set of tables.
One last comment: If you really only want this program for bidding practice, and not for simulations, a lot of these optimizations are probably unnecessary. That's because the very nature of practicing makes it unworthy of the time to practice bids that are extremely rare. So if you have a condition which only comes up once in a billion deals, you really might not want to worry about it. :)
[Edit: Add smart stacking details.]
Okay, there are exactly 8192=2^13 possible holdings in a suit. Group them by length and honor count:
Holdings(length,points) = { set of holdings with this length and honor count }
So
Holdings(3,7) = {AK2, AK3,...,AKT,AQJ}
and let
h(length,points) = |Holdings(length,points)|
Now list all shapes that match your shape condition (spades=5):
5-8-0-0
5-7-1-0
5-7-0-1
...
5-0-0-8
Note that the collection of all possible hand shapes has size 560, so this list is not huge.
For each shape, list the ways you can get the total honor points you are looking for by listing the honor points per suit. For example,
Shape Points per suit
5-4-4-0 10-3-0-0
5-4-4-0 10-2-1-0
5-4-4-0 10-1-2-0
5-4-4-0 10-0-3-0
5-4-4-0 9-4-0-0
...
Using our sets Holdings(length,points), we can compute the number of ways to get each of these rows.
For example, for the row 5-4-4-0 10-3-0-0, you'd have:
h(5,10)*h(4,3)*h(4,0)*h(0,0)
So, pick one of these rows at random, with relative probability based on the count, and then, for each suit, choose a holding at random from the correct Holdings() set.
Obviously, the wider the range of hand shapes and points, the more rows you will need to pre-compute. A little more code, you can still do this with some cards pre-determined - if you know where the ace of spades or west's whole hand or whatever.
[*] In theory, you can solve these conditional probability issues for smart stacking with multiple hands, but the solution to the problem would make it effective only for extremely rare types of deals. That's because the number of rows in the factory's table is roughly the product of the number of rows for stacking one hand times the number of rows for stacking the other hand. Also, the h() table has to be keyed on the number of ways of dividing the n cards amongst hand 1, hand 2, and other hands, which changes the number of values from roughly 2^13 to 3^13 possible values, which is about two orders of magnitude bigger.
Since the numbers are quite small here, you could just take the heuristic approach: Randomly deal your cards, evaluate the constraints and just deal again if they are not met.
Depending on how fast your computer is, it might be enough to do this:
Repeat:
do a random deal
Until the board meets all the constraints
As with all performance questions, the thing to do is try it and see!
edit I tried it and saw:
done 1000000 hands in 12914 ms, 4424 ok
This is without giving any thought to optimisation - and it produces 342 hands per second meeting your criteria of "North has 5 spades and 13-16 honour points". I don't know the details of your application but it seems to me that this might be enough.
I would go for this flow, which I think does not affect the randomness (other than by pruning solutions that do not meet constraints):
List in your program all possible combinations of "valued" cards whose total Honour points count is between 13 and 16. Then pick randomly one of these combinations, removing the cards from a fresh deck.
Count how many spades you already have among the valued cards, and pick randomly among the remaining spades of the deck until you meet the count.
Now pick from the deck as much non-spades, non-valued cards as you need to complete the hand.
Finally pick the other hands among the remaining cards.
You can write a program that generates the combinations of my first point, or simply hardcode them while accounting for color symmetries to reduce the number of lines of code :)
Since you want to practise bidding, I guess you will likely be having various forms of constraints (and not just 1S opening, as I guess for this current problem) coming up in the future. Trying to come up with the optimal hand generation tailored to the constraints could be a huge time sink and not really worth the effort.
I would suggest you use rejection sampling: Generate a random deal (without any constraints) and test if it satisfies your constraints.
In order to make this feasible, I suggest you concentrate on making the random deal generation (without any constraints) as fast as you can.
To do this, map each hand to a 12byte integer (the total number of bridge hands fits in 12 bytes). Generating a random 12 byte integer can be done in just 3, 4 byte random number calls, of course since the number of hands is not exactly fitting in 12 bytes, you might have a bit of processing to do here, but I expect it won't be too much.
Richard Pavlicek has an excellent page (with algorithms) to map a deal to a number and back.
See here: http://www.rpbridge.net/7z68.htm
I would also suggest you look at the existing bridge hand dealing software (like Deal 3.1, which is freely available) too. Deal 3.1 also supports doing double dummy analysis. Perhaps you could make it work for you without having to roll one of your own.
Hope that helps.