Warp wrote:
> Edward Coffey <eco### [at] alphalinkcomau> wrote:
> 
>>This would probably introduce more problems than it solves for some 
>>purposes, leading to even less randomness in the low bits
> 
> 
>   When dealing with random number generators, it's a very common principle,
> that trying to make a good RNG better by adding more clutter to it usually
> makes it a lot worse. (The natural way of thinking that "a more complicated
> function will probably lead to a more complicated result" is usually quite
> false when dealing with RNGs. Usually when trying to make the function
> "more complicated" you end up with an extremely poor RNG.)

Oh, absolutely, I wasn't trying to make a better PRNG, indeed I stated 
that it would be worse for many situations. The only benefit it provides 
is providing different sequences, so if the number 1929474638 follows 
92928 in one sequence, the same will not necessarily occur in another. 
Obviously if you need really good psuedo-random numbers in POV there are 
far better options if you're prepared to put in a little effort.

Post a reply to this message