Re: 32-bit random numbers
On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 22:06:33 +0200, Juergen Luethje <j.lue at gmx.de>
wrote:
>My text that you quoted above, was a reply to Pete, when he wrote:
>"As I think was said, I would also have noted that #00010001, #00020002,
>etc will be less likely."
>Sorry, I still don't see the reason why e.g. #00010001 would be less
>likely than any other value, when concatenating 2 uniformly distributed
>16-bit random numbers.
I just wrote a quick test program (actually only a minute or so before
reading this post), over 10,000,000 iterations, which soundly proved
me *wrong* on that point. My bad.
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
