Date: Mon, 07 Oct 1996 20:37:38 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: ache@nagual.ru (=?KOI8-R?Q?=E1=CE=C4=D2=C5=CA_=FE=C5=D2=CE=CF=D7?=), rkw@dataplex.net, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <1877.844713458@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Oct 1996 10:53:10 PDT." <199610071753.KAA14386@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199610071753.KAA14386@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes: >> > If YOU want a different function, by all means write one, test it, and use > it. >> > >> > However, DO NOT change the existing functions. PERIOD. >> >> The function must conforms standard - it is main rule. >> What you say is "golden code" syndrome. >> >> We already change some math functions and nobody complains. > >A typical run is one million relativistically invariant collisions >which pass the physics constraints that have been imposed. > >If I run experiment #2 to compare results with experiment #1, I will >not know that you have perterbed the code. It will not be obvious >to me from my results in experiment #2. Terry, I happen to know that branch physics quite well too, so I have a couple of comments to your ravings here: First, You would be awarded the IG Nobel prize if you seriously tried to publish studies of the kind you propose without having 100% control over and a very good study backing the random-generator you use. In particular, running that kind of "experiments" with the kind of low-grade random-generators we have in FreeBSD, and the number of events you talk about, would reveal noting more than how lousy our random generators are, and people who need to know that, have learned their lesson by now. And quite frankly, I don't think anybody really runs too many of those experiments anymore, since fast and high-quality random- generators that can keep up with the wacko ideas that people want "tested" in bigger and bigger scenes have just not materialized. Finally, if they want to "reproduce" the "experiment" it has for several years been recognized as far more interesting to reproduce with a different random-generator, to see if the result may have been mangled by a bad choice of random-generator in the first place. So there: be serious please :-) You have to be more careful, you have already used your quota of "See all this fancy stuff I know, don't you think I'm a really cool & bright guy?" posting quota for all of october now... If our random seed function sucks, we can and should fix it. And I think we should actually add a function that would seed it from /dev/random if people want random numbers, for instance for games. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | phk@FreeBSD.ORG FreeBSD Core-team. http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk Private mailbox. whois: [PHK] | phk@ref.tfs.com TRW Financial Systems, Inc. Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1877.844713458>