Here’s how to use evolutionary biology for encryption. How’s that for defining randomness.
This is actually closer to using cell movements as a source of randomness.
I read the article and it led me to wonder if there are much simpler ways to generate truly random numbers (TRN).
Firstly, wouldn’t it be easier to use standard hardware which relies on a radioisotope’s random decays? (Or are there patent issues and hefty royalties which unduly inflate the cost?)
Secondly, the method used in the article led me to wonder if there is some way to base a TRN device on Brownian motion. (I suspect there is something wrong with my thinking in that regard but I’d appreciate it if those with greater expertise could explain to me why Brownian motion wouldn’t be a practical means of TRN generation. Is it an engineering and pragmatic issue? @Patrick, perhaps your engineering expertise could help me here.)
By the way, did anybody else get the impression that the journalist who wrote the article didn’t really understand the topic? I found a number of poorly worded statements:
Even so-called random number generators are really pseudo-random number generators.
That is only true of algorithm-based, software-only random number generators. There are plenty of commercially available “hardware add-on cards” which produce TRNs (Truly Random Numbers) because they depend on truly random natural processes (usually radioisotope decay.)
So not all random number generators are “so-called random number generators.” Yes, pseudo-random number generators have there flaws but there are plenty of “non-pseudo” random number generators.
Of course. I get that impression from most popular press articles about science.