### Author:  [@Enlil50](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Enlil50)
#### Post date: [February 19, 2024, 10:34pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/1 "2024-02-19T22:34:38Z")
I know that to use Xoshiro256++ is better to randomize the seed with a fast rng as splitmix. This enables us to generate the 4 states of xoshiro256++.
Is this done by default?
---
### Author:  [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2024, 12:14am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/2 "2024-02-20T00:14:19Z")
Yes:
>
Although I figured out a way to majorly simplify the splitmix algorithm so that it doesn’t require arithmetic in a prime modulus, all explained in that massive comment.
---
### Author:  [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2024, 3:26am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/3 "2024-02-20T03:26:05Z")
If you’re asking about the initial seeding rather than the task splitting, then we do way better and use SHA256 to go from user-provided seeds to create the actual RNG state.
---
### Author:  [@Oscar\_Smith](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Oscar_Smith)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2024, 3:44am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/4 "2024-02-20T03:44:51Z")
Have you thought about putting that comment on arxiv?
---
### Author:  [@mbauman](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mbauman)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2024, 2:04pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/5 "2024-02-20T14:04:00Z")
A post was split to a new topic: [Linear relationship between Xoshiro tasks](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/linear-relationship-between-xoshiro-tasks/110454)
---
### Author:  [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)
#### Post date: [February 20, 2024, 1:49pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/6 "2024-02-20T13:49:04Z")
Yeah, I’ve thought about writing it up. But making something into a paper is always so much extra work…
---
### Author:  [@caleb-allen](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/caleb-allen)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2024, 6:45pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/7 "2024-02-21T18:45:02Z")
>
Wow, this feels like a magic trick!
---
### Author:  [@StefanKarpinski](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/StefanKarpinski)
#### Post date: [February 21, 2024, 7:02pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/random-seed-initialization-with-splitmix/110426/8 "2024-02-21T19:02:16Z")
It does, right?! But task forks are inherently binary—each task only forks one child at a time—so it really felt like there had to be some way to make the task coordinates binary. The tricky bit is that you have a choice of somewhat unintuitive ways of thinking about binary “pedigree” coordinates:
1. The parent task’s coordinates changing every time it spawns a child—weird since shouldn’t a tasks have a fixed coordinate?
2. Upon fork, parent task is actually replaced by two children—the actual child, and a replacement of itself that is in practice the same object, but is theoretically different with a longer coordinate tuple. This is also weird.
3. Or each task has infinite coordinates, that are all zeros beyond some point. That’s how I formalize it in my proof in the other thread.
Despite the infinite part, I think the last option is the best: each task has a single, fixed (albeit infinite) coordinate tuple.