Re: 32-bit random numbers
Igor Kachan wrote:
> I can say nothing about the distribution
> on your formula. I just see it is not flat.
Ok, it's one thing to *SAY* it's not flat,
for example, i can *SAY* YOURS isnt flat,
but it's another story to *PROVE* it's not flat.
You see now?
You can teach a 4 year old to say 'everything is not flat'
but it's not true, is it?
In other words, PROVE it's not flat.
The reason i say this is because it looks like the
distribution *IS* flat, but there is of course always
the chance i made a mistake in the analysis, im just human!
So, if you want me to understand why you say it is *NOT* flat,
please show me how you came to this conclusion.
BTW, i wasnt saying YOUR function isnt flat, im just asking
why you needed another function, that's all, and what the
benefits are. I thought maybe you wanted higher and higher
random integers so i proposed another solution 
The proposed solution goes up to ANY desired integer ceiling,
not just #FFFFFFFF or whatever.
Im not saying there is no chance i made a mistake, im just asking
that you show me why you say it's not flat, especially the
N*(rand(N)-1)+rand(N)-1, with N=#10000
formula?
BTW, by 'flat' i assumed you meant that there is equal chance
of getting any number from 0 to max, so there are no preferences.
BTW(2), it would also be good to have a formula to specify the
max, such as max=N*(N-1)+N-1
or something like that.
> But you do see just now that proposed new
> function seems to give the flat distribution.
Yes, but i was only asking what the reasoning behind
developing a new formula would be, if it does the same.
If it does something different, that's cool too
Take care,
Al
And, good luck with your Euphoria programming!
My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
