From: Clemens Valens Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: how about "more" random ? Organization: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discussions Start Here X-Originating-Host: 195.154.148.69 X-Wren-Trace: cDYRMSQ2ahk3f2IUJnp3bHRldmJpYCF6YGN5ZGZ7djZoaSN5aSN3dmtjan1uL2UieSw7NSRnEh46K3g7KXMxLX11ODI= Message-ID: <933323259.1410@www.remarq.com> References: Lines: 15 Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:27:30 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.0.3.195 X-Complaints-To: wrenabuse AT remarq DOT com X-Trace: WReNphoon3 933323138 10.0.3.195 (Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:25:38 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 01:25:38 PDT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com I think the difference is due to limited wordlength, which means rounding errors and overflow. For instance, when you multiply by 100 before deviding, you can have an overflow. For accurate calculations you should group together numbers with the same order of magnitude. By dividing first you reduce the output of rand to a value between 0 and 1 (if I understand rand correctly) and then scale it to a number between 0 and 100. Clemens * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!