From: "A. Sinan Unur" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: a randomize function for DJGPP? Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:25:22 -0500 Organization: Cornell University http://www.cornell.edu Lines: 31 Sender: asu1 AT cornell DOT edu (Verified) Message-ID: <3325DBD2.7D93@cornell.edu> References: <5flbpp$m74 AT nr1 DOT ottawa DOT istar DOT net> <331FC0D1 DOT 1A26 AT cs DOT com> <5fps67$pc3 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <5g0b8s$snb AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> <33241CA7 DOT 4E84 AT pobox DOT oleane DOT com> <5g2mtu$6c0 AT freenet-news DOT carleton DOT ca> Reply-To: asu1 AT cornell DOT edu NNTP-Posting-Host: cu-dialup-0078.cit.cornell.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Paul Derbyshire wrote: > > Francois Charton (deef AT pobox DOT oleane DOT com) writes: > > In many scientific applications using random numbers (I think the > > poster was talking about Monte Carlo integration), there is a double > > problem : you need randomness, but you also need your calculations > > to be repeatable. This makes non repeatable generators, like white > > noise chips,less useful in such cases. > > Why? Real life gamblling at Monte Carlo is certainly not dependent on > being repeatable. > Far from it! > do you know what 'monte carlo integration' is? i am not going to in to details, but will point out that __any__ scientific computation you make needs not only to be well defined, accurate etc but also be repeatable by other people using the exact same methods and data. otherwise, anyone can claim anything. so, no, obviously scientific computing is not mean to be gambling in monte carlo. -- Sinan ******************************************************************* A. Sinan Unur WWWWWW |--O+O mailto:sinan DOT unur AT cornell DOT edu C ^ http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/asu1/ \ ~/ *******************************************************************