From: ec1828@gmail.com   
      
   Lawrence D'Oliveiro  writes:   
      
   > On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:16:29 -0000 (UTC), I wrote:   
   >   
   >> The definition of “randomness” is “you don’t know what’s coming   
   next”.   
   >> How do you prove you don’t know something? You can’t. There are various   
   >> statistical tests for randomness, but remember that a suitably encrypted   
   >> message can pass every one of them, and a person who knows the message   
   >> knows that the bitstream is not truly random.   
      
   Knuth gives a nice lecture about the definition of randomness in TAoCP,   
   volume 2, section 3.5---what is a random sequence?  He gives a nice   
   definition (definition R1, page 152), which doesn't quite work, though   
   it's quite simple; he then patches it various times, reaching definition   
   R6, which he claims it works against all criticisms.  It's quite a   
   precise definition, so it's worthy of mention.   
      
   There's also an interesting paper by Anna Johnston on entropy, in which   
   she makes the (correct, in my opinion) remark that entropy really is a   
   relative notion.   
      
   --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8---   
   Note that entropy is relative. It is not a solid, physical   
   entity. Entropy depends on perspective or what is known and unknown   
   about the data to a given entity. Once viewed, all information in the   
   data is known to the viewer (zero entropy in the viewers perspective),   
   but the data still contains entropy to non-viewers. The belief that   
   entropy is something that has a classical, fixed measure is false and   
   causes many interpretation issues. -- Anna Johnston, ``Comments on   
   Cryptographic Entropy Measurement'', 2019, section 2, page 3.   
      
   Source:   
      
   --8<-------------------------------------------------------->8---   
      
   > Here’s an even simpler proof, by reductio ad absurdum.   
   >   
   > Suppose you have a sequence of numbers which is provably random. Simply   
   > pregenerate a large bunch of numbers according to that sequence, and store   
   > them. Then supply them one by one to another party. The other party   
   > doesn’t know what’s coming next, but you do. Therefore they are not   
   random   
   > to you.   
   >   
   > Which contradicts the original assumption of provable randomness. QED.   
      
   I get the feeling here that, by the same token, you could never have a   
   provably secure cryptosystem because someone knows the private key?   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)