Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: Why no hardware random numbers?
Message-ID: <464@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 16-Mar-85 00:13:06 EST
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.464
Posted: Sat Mar 16 00:13:06 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 00:02:15 EST
References: <868@utcsri.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 10

> So, why do so few supposedly modern computers include a hardware random number
> generator?  I mean really, every decent library includes at least one flawed-in-

In the heaviest users of random numbers, Monte Carlo programs, repeatability
is very important.  When tracking down a bug being able to generate the same
sequence is very useful.  Making a REAL random number generator is not very
easy.  Bias in the hardware can creep in and be very difficult to detect.
GEE, did I discover a new effect with my Monte Carlo program or was the random
number generator a little off last tuesday.  I can't find out because I can't
generate the same sequence again.