X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
In-Reply-To:	<200709051511.l85FBDts032068@envy.delorie.com>
Subject:	Re: random() : What am I doing wrong?
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailer:	Lotus Notes Release 7.0.2 September 26, 2006
Message-ID:	<OF8023CA5C.B777E9E3-ON8725734D.00541573-8725734D.00544D8B@seagate.com>
From:	Gordon DOT Schumacher AT seagate DOT com
Date:	Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:20:52 -0600
X-MIMETrack:	Serialize by Router on SV-GW1/Seagate Internet(Release 7.0.1 HF29|March 07, 2006) at
	09/05/2007 08:20:56 AM
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Proofpoint-FWRule:	outbound2
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version:	vendor=fsecure engine=4.65.5502:2.3.11,1.2.37,4.0.164 definitions=2007-09-05_06:2007-09-05,2007-09-05,2007-09-05 signatures=0
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote on 09/05/2007 09:11:13 AM:

# > That depends if you care about equidistribution; if you do, you'd be
# > better off
#
# ... not using random() in the first place.

Fair enough :)
I can recommend the Mersenne Twister for this, if anyone cares...

# This has *exactly* the same problem, it just involves different
# numbers being weighted heavier.
#
# If you really want equidistribution, you have to check for the last
# couple of numbers, and call random() again if you get them.

Well, okay - random() doesn't anything like guarantee
equidistribution.  But that said, wouldn't scaling the result set
at least not give you anything *worse* than what you started with?

(I freely admit that we're pushing the bounds of what I know here,
so this isn't meant as a challenge, but rather the possibility of
learning something...)

- Raw text -