David Schultz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Rather than me showing you more semi-meaningful numbers from > Marsaglia's tests, why don't you look at the following sequence, > which I get by taking the lowest four bits of the 201st number in > the rand() sequence for seeds of (0, 1, 2, ...). >
f c 9 6 2 f c 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e b 7 4 1 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 6 2 f c 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e b 7 4 1 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 6 2 f c 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 1 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 6 2 f c 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 1 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 5 2 f c 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 1 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 5 2 f c 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 0 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 5 2 f c 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 0 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 5 2 f b 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 0 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 5 2 f b 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 0 d a 7 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 5 2 f b 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 0 d a 6 3 0 d 9 6 3 f c 9 5 2 f b 8 5 2 e b 8 4 1 e a 7 4 0 d a 6 3 0 d 9 6 3 f > Notice that 'f c 9' repeats in regular intervals and is always > followed by a 5 or 6. There is a similar pattern for 'e a 7'. I > think this pretty much demonstrates that the algorithm isn't good > enough to generate high-quality randomness with respect to > different seed values. I'm not suggesting that it absolutely must > be replaced, since most rand() implementations aren't very good in > the first place, but I'm pointing out that to do a good job of > fixing it once and for all is harder than you might think. A littele modification shows just how similar these sequences are :) -- Eric Hodel - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://segment7.net All messages signed with fingerprint: FEC2 57F1 D465 EB15 5D6E 7C11 332A 551C 796C 9F04
msg51721/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
