Re: 32-bit random numbers
Hi Al,
----------
> From: Al Getz <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
> To: EUforum at topica.com
> Subject: Re: 32-bit random numbers
> Sent: 10 jul 2004 y. 23:36
>
>
> posted by: Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com>
>
> 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?
Yes, I see. It is not flat, your distribution.
This my affirmation is very common.
I can say nothing about concrete parameters of
your distribution, it is the same thing that
I can say nothing about the distribution on
your formula, yes.
Formula is yours, try to prove it is good.
This is not my problem, Al.
I am trying to explain that N must be <<< K
in proposed the rand_atom() function.
Did you understand my explanation?
> You can teach a 4 year old to say
> 'everything is not flat' but it's not true,
> is it?
He he, Al, even an any 40 years old can not
understand the Einstein's theory about
all curved spaces 
> In other words, PROVE it's not flat.
Al, distribution is yours, we need the flat one,
prove please yours one is flat.
BTW, it is the very complicated task
to create a good flat RNG, very, ask Rob.
rand() is one of the good examples.
We use it for our tasks.
> 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!
I'm just human too, it seems to be, no?
> So, if you want me to understand why you say
> it is *NOT* flat, please show me how you came
> to this conclusion.
Al, it is very long another [OT] story, I worked
on Russian navy research many years, models-shmodels,
we used Monte Carlo method, these RNGs-sh-sh-mrngs ...
brrrr ...
Another story, Al, books-sh-m-books ...
Ricardo knows, he says too - not flat.
Believe him.
> BTW, i wasnt saying YOUR function isnt flat,
> im just asking why you needed another function,
> that's all, and what the benefits are.
We just need a flat discrete distribution in maximum
integer range with step = 1.
My function seems to give just this one.
No another needs.
> 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?
Al, this formula gives the composition
of TWO random numbers, each one with SAME flat
distribution. N is not random, *each* call
of rand(N) dives unpredictable number from
the [1, N] range.
Read please some good book on this
subject to be sure. It is too long story
for this list and especially for my time.
> 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.
Yes, it is flat as I understand it.
(Good question for that late stage of discussion.)
> 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.
Maybe, I don't know.
> > 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.
No, not the same. N and K. N << K.
Then it seems to be flat.
It requires the careful testing after discussion.
> If it does something different, that's cool too
Al, cool or not very cool it is not our question.
We need the flat distribution on full EU integer
atoms range with step = 1, for now.
> Take care,
> Al
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
