RE: Separate threads of random numbers
On 10 Apr 2002, at 16:57, Rod Jackson wrote:
>
>
> Andy Serpa wrote:
> >
> > > Looks good, but will this avoid any algorithmic pitfalls? I.e.,
> > > one thread in 100 finds a quirk in the psuedorandom algorithm
> > > and continually brings up the same number over and over? Stuff
> > > like that can be a headache....
> > >
> >
> > That's the sort of thing I need to avoid, and is the reason for
> > separating the threads. Under the proposed system, how would the same
> > number keep repeated itself? Could you detail the possible "chain" that
> >
> > worries you?
>
> Well, just off the top of my head...
>
> Thread #5 might have a unique, "problematic" seed value to start
> out. This seed value will generate a random number like usual, and
> of course the next number could then be used as the new seed. This
> new seed will then generate a new random number, but then the next
> number is the same as the ORIGINAL seed value. That number then
> replaces the new seed, so in essence the seed just keeps switching
> between two numbers.
<snip>
I have often wondered why people don't look to nature for random numbers.
There, i was just wondering it again! Like, take a random weather reading
from a list of locations around the world, perform random math on it with a
reading from another location, or a random number of random readings. Or
against the 3D location in the sky of a random planetary body. Even if one
cannot do this in real time, one can bank the readings for use as needed, or
as seed values in conventional random number generator. This would give
you values no one has control over, and are unlikely to be repeatable. Scope
might be a problem, or significant digits, so loop the random math operations
untill you get the digits (altho this will put you somewhat at the mercy of the
math chip peculiarities).
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
