Re: 32-bit random numbers
Hello Ricardo,
You wrote:
>Date: Jul 13 5:29
>From: "Ricardo M. Forno" <rforno at uyuyuy.com>
>Subject: RE: 32-bit random numbers
>Hi, both Igor and Al.
>Actually I didn't say anything about these formulas.
>In an older post, I was referring to another formula
>saying not that it wasn't flat, but that it didn't
>generate all possible numbers. It was flat, however.
>Regarding Al's formula and Igor's formula, it seems
>to me they both produce flat distributions, but this
>is only shallow thinking and I haven't yet tried
>to prove their flatness.
>Regards.
I'm sorry, Ricardo, yes, it was in Al's thread
Re: Let's try this ONE more time 
Your words are:
------
>
> Hi, Al.
>
> You said:
>
> <snip>
>
> > 1. For two added rnd numbers the distribution
> > should be the same.
> > It's multiplication that changes the distribution.
>
> In fact, adding two or more random numbers
> *changes* the distribution.
> Old FORTRAN routines used the sum of 12 random
> numbers (why exactly 12? Because this was
> considered enough to get a good distribution)
> to get a Gaussian normal distribution.
>
> Regards.
Yes, the simplest composition of 2 added random numbers
gives not flat, triangle, Simpson's distribution, 12 gives
almost already Gaussian not flat distribution.
So, I thought you are saying about *not flat* distributions
at all. But actually you are saying only about *changes*
in more common sense, yes?
Sorry again, my hurry.
Anyway, your words and your restraint shows
your good understanding of the discussing question.
Thanks.
Regards,
Igor Kachan
kinz at peterlink.ru
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
