> Every PRNG algorithm has state that is shared among all of its consumers. That is basically true by definition.
Right, but again why did you say it needs to have global state "if you want to get decent statistics"?
What is the alternative to having global state that doesn't have decent statistics?
That "if" is the part I'm confused about.
The part of your comment directly after that sounds like you're describing the situation where clients are data-racing the PRNG and generating repeat numbers and other problems. But that's a problem specifically because of global state being used incorrectly, not something that happens as an alternative to global state.
The alternative is not being random, and "decent statistics" means "being pseudorandom" - the statistics are inseparable from the randomness. You can make a PRNG that has data races, but from a randomness perspective, that is equivalent to just using /dev/null as your random number generator.
Okay, I think I understand. You're being extremely harsh in how you consider brokenness, so if it's broken it might as well not be generating anything at all, no state needed.
I was considering "fairly broken PRNG" as its own significant group, and those need state too if you treat them as separate from "this literally gives the same number every time". But if those all go in the same bucket, then the comparison you made makes sense.
Right, but again why did you say it needs to have global state "if you want to get decent statistics"?
What is the alternative to having global state that doesn't have decent statistics?
That "if" is the part I'm confused about.
The part of your comment directly after that sounds like you're describing the situation where clients are data-racing the PRNG and generating repeat numbers and other problems. But that's a problem specifically because of global state being used incorrectly, not something that happens as an alternative to global state.