Subject: Re: [boost] [random] Determining interest in Pseudo-Random Functions and Counter Based Random Number Generators
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-26 18:21:37
On 01/26/2012 09:29 AM, thijs_at_[hidden] wrote:
>> Our work is definitely complementary to TRNG. We go beyond TRNG by arguing
>> that if you use pseudo-random functions (which we call counter-based PRNGs
>> in the paper), in lieu of conventional PRNGs, then things like 'skip' and
>> 'jump' and 'jump2' become moot. You simply don't need them. On the other
>> hand, if you have pseudo-random functions, then it's easy to implement
>> skip() and jump() and jump2() for the benefit of applications that are
>> already coded to a TRNG-like APIl. In fact, I'll probably do that in a
>> future release of the Random123 library.
FWIW, the C++ standard library uses void discard(long long);
>> Still, I would be pleased if our work became part of boost, and that boost
>> wouuld be enhanced by its inclusion, so I'm still interested in finding a
>> way to fit Random123 into boost.
> I'm looking into the lib now, and I must say that the counter based concept is very interesting. I like it a lot, and I hope that you would also preserve this state-less approach if you align it with boost.
The issue that I see is that the stateless interface
doesn't interact well with the distribution concepts
and I see no easy way to make it work, since the
distributions don't necessarily use a 1-to-1 transformation
on the output of the engine.
> At first look it would be nice if this would indeed become part of boost. As a boost user I would vote for inclusion if there was a vote.
>From my point of view, I definitely support the addition
of new engines that model the existing concepts. For
the stateless interface, the interaction with distributions
/must/ be resolved first.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk