[Cryptography] Duh, why aren't most embedded TRNGs designed this way?

[Robert Wilson]

Not disagreeing with the technical statements, just with a perceived attitude: "probably the closest thing to a mathematical proof (albeit probabilistic IIRC)"

The proofs we remember from high school geometry were not supposed to involve probability, but for me that was 67 years ago. There has been a lot of acceptance since then that some proofs could only involve probability, something like "This has at most 0.00009% probability of being wrong" with rigorous, traditional mathematical, arguments, to back that up.

Now my thesis did not include those, and as a matter of taste I definitely prefer proofs that don't. But in the real world, wherever that is, we may sometimes have to accept them. Our mathematical world has expanded enormously. So I can't quite accept that being probabilistic puts it outside of mathematics! Others are welcome to differ...

Bob W