Frank de Groot wrote:
And now you say that some complicated method of picking custom values might be equivalent to 1 or 2 extra random bits.
You didn't challenge my claim that custom 60 bits is no better than random 64 bits.I never said that. I said that random sucks and that a "complicated method" is "much better".
This is an outrageous claim.
You are implying that people like Erik, Arthur and myself have made a mistake and have spoilt their hasher by chasing an illusion..
I claim that they went to considerable effort to get the equivalent of only a few extra random bits.
Random values are not trivial to code.
But people have already done this work for you. Think libraries. No one has to code a PRNG from scratch... as opposed to your custom values.
I guess I'm gonna join Erik in asking you to quantify the benefit of custom values...People have been promoted on the topic of "good random". And "good random" is not good enough for our purposes, however good it is.