Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 07:59:55 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: 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: <2646.844754395@critter.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 07 Oct 1996 12:15:01 PDT." <199610071915.MAA14666@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <199610071915.MAA14666@phaeton.artisoft.com>, Terry Lambert writes: >> 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. > >The random number generator being used for the calculations I've >referenced is the rand48 linear congruential generator. It has a >period well below the number of events being studied. Since you have still not pointed out anybody stupid enough to use rand() for their work, why do you still babble ? I don't think anybody would touch rand48 without a good reason, and I'm sure if they found a good reason, the users would be most interested to see how that may have ruined their results. -- 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?2646.844754395>