Why is it so hard to generate true RANDOM? (winamp)

[SXMP]

Something to think about: a truly "random" playlist could have the same song play 5, 10, infinte number of times in a row. The topic in question, as Alternex stated is "shuffling"

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: johnjbruin

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: gopunk
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness

why is it so hard mathematically? i think it's just winamp that sucks

its not hard mathematically but computers are teh dumb when it comes to complete randomness.

well? wtf? implement that formula into the dumbass progs!

It's not possible to use a mathematical formula to generate randomness. What good would mathematic be if its formulae produced random results?

This is very close to the PHB in Dilbert. You're assuming that anything you don't understand how to do must be easy.

As far as the random number generators go, check out this site: http://www.qflux.net/ I have been watching it for quite a while and I find it very interesting.

ZV

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Originally posted by: Alternex
you know there's an option in winamp (v3) to increase the shuffling range.. the default won't shuffle too much

same in winamp 2.xx (2.8 here).

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: johnjbruin

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: gopunk
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness

why is it so hard mathematically? i think it's just winamp that sucks

its not hard mathematically but computers are teh dumb when it comes to complete randomness.

well? wtf? implement that formula into the dumbass progs!

It's not possible to use a mathematical formula to generate randomness. What good would mathematic be if its formulae produced random results?

This is very close to the PHB in Dilbert. You're assuming that anything you don't understand how to do must be easy.

As far as the random number generators go, check out this site: http://www.qflux.net/ I have been watching it for quite a while and I find it very interesting.

ZV

Hmm I can't get the VI Evolver to work It crashes..

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: johnjbruin

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace

Originally posted by: gopunk
well it is hard to generate true random (like impossible), but yea winamp sucks at pseudorandomness

why is it so hard mathematically? i think it's just winamp that sucks

its not hard mathematically but computers are teh dumb when it comes to complete randomness.

well? wtf? implement that formula into the dumbass progs!

It's not possible to use a mathematical formula to generate randomness. What good would mathematic be if its formulae produced random results?

This is very close to the PHB in Dilbert. You're assuming that anything you don't understand how to do must be easy.

As far as the random number generators go, check out this site: http://www.qflux.net/ I have been watching it for quite a while and I find it very interesting.

ZV

Hmm I can't get the VI Evolver to work It crashes..

Yeah, the new releases aren't working on my (admittedly older) system. Sticky runs though. I figured that people here would be more interested in the engine though.

ZV

 

[Slickone]

Are the random # generators in programming languages not true random?

If Sonique is better, why does anyone use Winamp? Plugins?

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
You wanna know what's REALLY funny? Take a ton of brand new TI-83+'s. Their 'random' integer generators are in sync - so long as you pass all of them the same arguments, you'll get the same answers on every one of them. Found this out on the first day of my statistics class.

christ you must've been bored

 

[Danman]

Hmmm.....I'll have to try this Sonique. Thanks guys!

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: Slickone
Are the random # generators in programming languages not true random?

If Sonique is better, why does anyone use Winamp? Plugins?

I always thought even the random number generators in compilers were justn umbers out of a ilst.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Slickone
Are the random # generators in programming languages not true random?

If Sonique is better, why does anyone use Winamp? Plugins?

that is correct, they are pseudorandom.