# Math Is Fun Forum

Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫  π  -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

## #1 2024-06-08 12:33:17

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Possible 'new knowledge'

I am 73 years old, and a private researcher. What I have been working on for thirty-five years, most people will not understand. However, most people agree and understand this fact, “currently the future is unknowable before it happens.” Proof of this, “if we knew what was going to happen in the future, we would have a perfect society able to sidestep or eliminate problems before they happen. The stupidity is thinking that “you know the future.” or “what will happen in the future is obvious.” If that were true, we would all be Bitcoin millionaires.”

The PROBLEM is creating random numbers using a formula, as currently done. This is incorrect. Generating random numbers caused by a formula can be reverse engineered. Therefore, they are not secure. I can make secure random numbers because I do not use a formula, I use future knowledge.

Example of future knowledge: When you click the button on a stopwatch to start an event, the exact nano-second is unknowable till it happens.

I am interested in learning who and how to show this project too. Data as Excel365 and Word365.

Understanding Project Goals:
1. Make an indeterminate system from a deterministic system.
2. Formula to qualify ‘random number generator’ output.
3. Create “Real Random Numbers” with a digital computer.

Output goals:
1. It looks random. This means that it passes all the statistical tests of randomness that we can find.
2. It is unpredictable. It must be computationally infeasible to predict what the next random bit will be, given complete knowledge of the algorithm or hardware generating the sequence and all the previous bits in the stream.
3. It cannot be reliably reproduced. If you run the sequence generator twice with the exact same input (at least as exact as humanly possible), you will get two completely unrelated random sequences.

The output of a generator satisfying these three properties will be good enough for a one-time pad, key generation, and any other cryptographic applications that require a truly random sequence generator.

This project’s output is unbreakable even with quantum computers.

Thanks,

Leonard Dye

Offline

## #2 2024-06-08 15:40:41

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

Stopwatch Problem
1.       Time, it includes hours, minutes, seconds and nanoseconds. True or False
2.       Clicking the button at the start of an event marks the beginning of the event. True or False
3.       The value of the beginning of the event CANNOT be known before it happens.  True or False
4.       Output of a digital stopwatch CANNOT be known before it appears on screen.  True or False
5.       Therefore, time can be used as an unknowable data point.  True or False
****************************************
The above is deductive logic. Every statement is either true or false. This leads to clear thinking about a problem. Knowledge learned and understood this way cannot be disproved unless ‘new knowledge’ on the problem is found.
If you agree that all five are true, then we can proceed with the knowledge that nobody can know the time at the beginning of an event.
Thanks
Leonard

Offline

## #3 2024-06-08 20:25:23

Bob
Registered: 2010-06-20
Posts: 10,464

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

hi woodturner550

Welcome to the forum.

I've used the 'random generator' on Excel quite a few times and the BBC Basic one, and I've never thought to question how it's done. Each time you 'call' the function it yields a different value so it looks random. But, you're right, it must be using a formula and hence results could be predicted by someone who knows how it works.  Many years ago in the UK the Premium Bond organisation made a piece of equipment which they called ERNIE (= Electronic Random Number Indicator Equipment).  Folk who buy premium bonds don't get a percentage interest, rather their numbers are entered in a draw, which pays out money to the lucky winners.

As far as I'm aware it has never been 'hacked'.

All digital computers run from an internal clock.  If you can find out how to access this then you would have your stop watch moment. Since the clock cycles are very fast it would be very hard for anyone to predict the moment you did this.

Subsequent numbers could be generated from within your routine by the same means.  The length of time that would elapse between numbers would probably be indeterminate too as the computer is doing thousands of other things whilst running your routine, which would be taking an unpredictable amount of time each, so the clock cycles would have progresed by an indeterminate amount each time.

Bob

Children are not defined by school ...........The Fonz
You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei
Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, just to test you!  …………….Bob

Offline

## #4 2024-06-09 05:29:07

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

Bob,
You are on the correct path. The real test is of the QUALITY of the random numbers.
"0.499999973    Standard Deviation of 12,000,000 bits
0.5    Best Possible Standard Deviation of binary

To really understand this, the data is important and must be understood.
Thanks,
Leonard Dye

Another way to view this:
The Challenge!
This is a thought challenge. The “seed” for random numbers is unknowable, using time. When you click on a stopwatch at the beginning of an event, that marks the beginning of the event. Do you know the EXACT nano-second the event started? No. It was moved out of the future and moved into the “NOW,” it is an unknowable data point till it happens.

To make this something common, let us use shuffling cards.

Python is used for this example. Using “list methods” therefore using “pop” and “insert,” which is the same as “remove from list” and “add to list.”

Rule 1. The length of the list changes with every pop or insert before the next random number is
generated. This is reflected on every random number generated using time (Nano) or no
seed (input).

Rule 2. When it is time to do “discard recovery” a random number is generated for each card and
inserted. For this exercise, each card should be reinserted before the next one is drawn.

1. Make a list of fifty-two card values. Any order is just one state of the cards.
2. Set the number of cards in the list.
3. Get a random number.
4. Print card value.
5. Set the number of cards on the list.
6. Get a random number.
7. Insert card
8. Repeat 1010 times, 2 through 7 in a single command.
9. Print the first 999 cards for the public.
10. Print the last ten cards for the secret part. The easiest way is to print two copies, one secret and
remove the last ten cards before making 999 public.
11. When the answer is arrived at, check it against the secret list. Understanding the pure logic of this is important. But your wrong answer is the proof that this is correct.
***End of Challenge**
Note: This works just as well dealing with multiple cards before “discard recovery” and replacing in list before next hand. Most important before every random number must update the length of the list. Even knowing the ten cards that are secret, proving that you know what the card should be is not possible.

Offline

## #5 2024-06-09 08:42:50

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

I understand that this is not a programing forum, but in this case, it is necessary to say that so far all that is known is the theory and the deductive logic. A little knowledge can be very dangerous. Do not be afraid that you have wasted your time. I will be showing how the algorithm is applied to get quality ‘random numbers.’ If ‘time’ is not used correctly the output will not have the needed quality.
I work with Python 3.7+ for the programing language. I also used PyCharm for my IDE, it is great.

# This program was written in spaghetti code style. This is done for clarity. Output is the same when written normally.
# Programing can be misunderstood by some people who want to try splitting hairs.
# Author: Leonard Dye, tomanytroubles@gmail.com, May 31, 2024 - Copyrighted 10/14/2023
import time
import random

def challenge():
number_of_needed_numbers = 10
count = 0
lowest_random_number_needed = 0
highest_random_number_needed = 1

while count < number_of_needed_numbers:
start_time = time.time()  # get first time
print("start time ", start_time)
time.sleep(0.00000000000001)  # wait
end_time = time.time()  # get second time
print("end time ", end_time)
low_time = ((end_time + start_time) / 2)  # covert to one time
print("low time ", low_time)
start_time1 = time.time()  # get third time
print("start time1 ", start_time1)
time.sleep(0.00000000000001)  # wait
end_time1 = time.time()  # get fourth time
print("end time1 ", end_time1)
high_time = ((end_time1 + start_time1) / 2)  # convert to one time
print("high time ", high_time)
random.seed((high_time + low_time) / 2)
random_number = random.randint(lowest_random_number_needed, highest_random_number_needed)
count += 1
print(random_number)
print("")
print("")

if __name__ == '__main__':
challenge()  # go to top, 'def challenge'

If there are any questions, please ask! I have tried to make things clear with out over writing the subject. If it is not clear to you then most likely there are other people with the same problem.
Thanks,
woodturner550

Offline

## #6 2024-06-09 23:35:54

KerimF
Member
From: Aleppo-Syria
Registered: 2018-08-10
Posts: 196

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

Very interesting. So far, so I might be wrong, I see just one application which can benefit from this study.

Every living thing has no choice but to execute its pre-programmed instructions embedded in it (known as instincts).
But only a human may have the freedom and ability to oppose his natural robotic nature.
But, by opposing it, such a human becomes no more of this world.

Offline

## #7 2024-06-10 03:18:19

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

Number Theory; Linear and Multilinear Algebra; Potential Theory; Statistics; Numerical Analysis; Statistical Mechanics, Structure of Matter.

Also this has a direct bearing on cryptography, because it is unbreakable by quantum computers.

Offline

## #8 2024-06-11 06:12:59

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

I’m very pleased that this forum understands what has been done. This is just the first step in bringing ‘new knowledge’ to all. This must be peer reviewed! It has been sent to NSA and they don’t reply or even acknowledge receiving the project.

Understanding that it is taught in computer classes that a digital computer cannot make ‘real’ random numbers because it follows a set of commands, it will always only make ‘pseudo’ random numbers. This is incorrect as has been shown. However, those educated in digital computers, including professors, are so blinded by their educated understanding that they won’t even look at possible ‘new knowledge.’

How to bring this forward is the part I don’t have the answer to. I’m hoping this forum entry will be shown to others and maybe people will open up to new learning.

Just as a side note, this has the possibility of being able to help in the stopping of ‘Ransomware’ attacks.

Offline

## #9 2024-06-11 10:56:16

KerimF
Member
From: Aleppo-Syria
Registered: 2018-08-10
Posts: 196

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

From my rather long experience, I ended up realizing that 'new knowledge' could be welcomed (assuming it is understood by some people) if it makes direct money only (or the like).

Anyway, speaking practically, 'new knowledge' in any field has to be useful to the one who needed it in the first place. For example, about forty years ago, I needed to connect my house and workplace (3 km distance) via RF voice inks. For about 5 years, I achieved this connection/communication by using a novel technique so that my RF links (on MW band then on FM band) couldn't be noticed by the radio listeners or authorities. Even in these days, this technique is supposed non-existent, at all universities around the world.

Last edited by KerimF (2024-06-11 10:57:38)

Every living thing has no choice but to execute its pre-programmed instructions embedded in it (known as instincts).
But only a human may have the freedom and ability to oppose his natural robotic nature.
But, by opposing it, such a human becomes no more of this world.

Offline

## #10 2024-06-11 12:11:48

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

So, I need to sell it. Explain how and what this does, making the world a better place. Let us look at a few:

1.    Privacy: This makes personal privacy a reality. Private thoughts, journals of all types, political discussions, business secrets and governments. This program’s output cannot be calculated by a quantum computer because it uses future knowledge, therefore, encryption is secure for all.

2.    Games: The program for the random numbers that games use, such as dealing cards are being generated by a pseudo random number generator. Their output is slanted from truly random. We as a people have agreed to accept it as REAL RANDOM in everyday life. Now games can really be fair.

3.    Mathematics: There are few mathematical fields that do not used random numbers. Mathematics is the language that helps make
sense of our world. Therefore, our view of the world might be clearer.

a.Especially important is the fact that real random numbers are easy and cheap to make with any digital computer capable of
running Python 3.7+.

This ‘new knowledge’ is free to use for personal use. For any other use must be licensed to ensure there are no back doors in the program, but the program is free to use once in compliance.

Offline

## #11 2024-06-11 20:00:23

Bob
Registered: 2010-06-20
Posts: 10,464

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

hi woodturner550

I'd be interested to see some output from your program.

In Python,  time.time() returns a UTC value ; in seconds and decimal fractions of a second. A computer's motherboard must save and increment this value using the computer's internal clock.  As the motherboard keeps running even when the computer is switched off this will get out of step with the standard time and so the operating system must, from time to time, log in to a standard time somewhere to get the current UTC.  This will take time (no pun intended) so the computer's version of UTC will never be exact. But that doesn't matter for your purposes, in fact, it helps because your version of UTC will be different from anyone else's.

Do you know how, for example, MS Excel makes up it's random numbers. Could it be that it already uses something similar to what you are proposing ?  If it does then MS probably already has the copyright on this.  It may also be that they don't publish this coding;  precisely because they don't want it hacked.

If a computer virus were able to modify the system's record of UTC, could this be a weakness that would allow a hacker to predict your numbers ?  If you can devise a way to be certain that the internal value ( of UTC) held by the computer's operating system is genuine; then you've got a way to be certain your method is reliable.

I think there are statistical tests for the reliability of randomness.  You'd need a large set of random outputs.

you wrote:

I understand that this is not a programing forum

We do have a computer section called Coder's corner.  I can move this thread across if you would like.

Bob

Children are not defined by school ...........The Fonz
You cannot teach a man anything;  you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei
Sometimes I deliberately make mistakes, just to test you!  …………….Bob

Offline

## #12 Yesterday 05:42:21

woodturner550
Novice
Registered: 2024-06-08
Posts: 8

### Re: Possible 'new knowledge'

Bob,
Thanks for your input. Email me and I will send the data to you, two hundred sets of sixty thousand binary bits put into Excel 365. The email address is in the Copyright notice. As for moving this, it is up to the forum. However, remember that computer programmers are taught that this is not possible.

One thing that I do not think people think about is that our country monitors other countries including their internet forums. Do you think other countries don't monitor our forums? Do you think that China or Russia already has this now! Yes. They monitor me. This is basic math. It is just as necessary as addition or subtraction for proper understanding of mathematics.

Yes Bob, there are a lot of tests for randomness. However, if one looks carefully, they are just approximations of randomness. I will be glad to send them to you or you can download them from NIST for free.

This is part of the data. This covers the entire 12,000,000 bits.
0.504966667    0.493466667    0.0115           Mean

0.5                    0.499957314    4.2686E-05    Standard Deviation

298                    -392                    690                    Over and under 30,000

0.499999973    Standard Deviation of 12,000,000 bits
0.5    Best Possible Standard Deviation of binary

Thanks for everyone's interest.
woodturner550

Offline