[Haskell] Re: About Random Integer without IO
k.schupke at imperial.ac.uk
Fri Nov 12 07:56:04 EST 2004
I am sorry, but you are wrong. You cannot programmatically generate a
sequence of random numbers - this is a mathematical fact and has nothing
to do with discussions about brains and turing machines.
Secondly the 'ergodic' functions you describe _will_ produce the same
sequence every time they are calculated unless the seed is different
(also an indisputable mathematical fact)
The only way to get 'randomness' into a functional program it through IO
Pseudo random numbers are stateful, you do (in kind of pseudo code):
random :: Seed -> (Number, NewSeed)
So at the end of the day you have two choises, propogate a seed, or do
IO. As for getting your seed, well it is either a constant or the result
Actually pseudo random number generators are not sufficently random for
good cryptography, which is why linux provides /dev/random. This is the
result of statistics collected from real world events - so you can see
this problem is not limited to haskell but to all programming languages.
If you want randomness in 'C' you have to seed the generator as well.
Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
> This is my *last* word, promised...
> Keean Schupke wrote:
>> Hmm... It is impossible to write a purely functional program to
>> generate random numbers. Not only that it is impossible for a
>> computer to generate random numbers (except using hardware like a
>> noise generator). Pseudo random numbers require a seed. Functional
>> programs by definition only depend on their inputs - therefore the
>> seed is either fixed (same numbers each run) or one of the inputs
>> (which means it must be IO).
> Will some of you, folks, finally *will to understand* what the issue
> is about?
> First, we don't care about 'real random' numbers, actually there are
> problems even with their
> definition. We need sequences which *behave* randomly, from the point
> of view of feasible
> tests, spectral/statistical; correlational, etc. RN generators work
> well, and that's it. Stop with
> that slogans that computers don't do anything random. It reminds me
> some discussion on
> other lists, where people for three months discuss whether the brain
> is a computer, or if
> the Universe can be assimilated to a Turing machine. I wish them and
> you all the best...
> Second, as the example of the ergodic function I told you about before
> demonstrates, there
> exist plenty of functions which are pure, don't propagate any 'seed',
> and which behave
> "wildly", which *can* be used as a pure "random function". I hate to
> do this, but you will find
> such a definition and even the plot thereof in my recent paper abount
> sound synthesis:
> Clive Brettingham-Moore points out very correctly that a Chaos is not
> the same as the
> Randomness. But, still, unstable dynamical systems, hardware and
> simulated, are used to
> make noise, "random" sequences with adequate properties. Continuous
> systems produce
> quasi-regular functions: Lorenz equations, Chua circuit, etc., but if
> discretized, the results
> of, say, Hénon system, etc. may be used as weakly correlated random
> Third, OK, let's assume we need a seed, and we use a standard RN gen.
> which propagates it.
> Now, of course everybody knows that if you launch a functional program
> 57686514 times, you
> will get 57686514 identical results. My goodness, what a tragic
> perspective, what horror!!
> Of course everybody launches the same program several times just in
> order to get different
> results, no?
> Seriously, if somebody has a computational problem which is <<par
> excellence>> stateful,
> let him use Monads, or whatever. Haskell conceptors put a lot of
> effort into it. But,
> conceptually, I thought that Haskell is mainly for people who
> elaborate functional programs
> in functional style, using functional design patterns and thinking
> And, personally I use random streams. Or, once constructed Perlin
> noise, and then used
> in different program instances with different initializations. I
> provide these initializations
> manually, outside any 'random' context, since I still think that Georg
> Martius is really wrong
>> I think automatic random initialisation is very important and handy
>> in programs that run non-deterministic simulations.
> This is perhaps my own idiosyncrasy, but I taught simulation for some
> years, I am not a
> speculator. The first slogan I tried to convey to my students is:
> -- The FIRST thing you should learn is that a good simulation should
> share one common
> property with a good experiment: that you be able to REPRODUCE IT. --
> People who do Monte-Carlo requiring many weeks of computing, and who
> break their
> program in temporal slices: Two days now, let's see, then continue for
> a week more...
> never, repeat *never* initialize their RNG automatically. The first
> run outputs the result
> together with the current value of the seed, and this value is
> reinjected into the next
> run,in order to prevent the improbable, but possible repetition of the
> sequence, which
> would invalidate the soundness of the gathering of statistical data.
> Thank you for your interest (if you got down to here...)
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk
> Haskell mailing list
> Haskell at haskell.org
More information about the Haskell