Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 13:53:29 -0700 (PDT) From: "Brian N. Handy" <handy@sag.space.lockheed.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>, ache@nagual.ru, rkw@dataplex.net, freebsd-hackers@FREEBSD.ORG Subject: Re: I plan to change random() for -current (was Re: rand() and random()) Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.94.961007133900.817Q-100000@sag.space.lockheed.com> In-Reply-To: <199610071915.MAA14666@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>This was not the only physicist who has sidebarred me, and a number >of mathematicians and physical chemists and at least one X-ray >crystallographer have also chimed in. I don't get it! I just *don't* understand this. Oh, in light of another post: M.S., Physics. (Ph.D., Physics, in progress.) Having taken a boatload of math and physics classes on the subject, I have noted that the mathematicians are typically quite a bit better at making sure they have a real random number generator. The physicists generally look for a black box, but at least most of the folks I've known have read the appropriate sections from _Numerical Recipes_. (Yep, mathematicians will often cringe at this book, but it's better than nothing.) And they ALL know not to use the system random function. That's about the first thing I was taught in school. Scientific applications *can't* depend on the system rand() functions! And I'm unaware of anybody in the field(s) that depends on the system random number generator! If you want control over your rand() -- you brew your own! You sure don't want to depend on the system version. Depending on the system version is counter productive. You go to a GREAT deal of work to get your numerical simulation to work -- why would you want to cripple it with a broken rand()? Regards, Brian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.94.961007133900.817Q-100000>