andrel wrote:

> Greg M. Johnson wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> 
>>> 1812433253
>> 
>> Fascinating.  Makes me want to make up my own from now on.
>> 
>> Is something like newrand()=  mod (1000* sin( (0.5+0.5*newrand())*pi ) ,
>> 1)
>> 
>> less "predictable?  Can you think of something better?
> yes.
> weakpoints are that it takes longer to compute than a standard random
> number generator but more importantly, is does not have a flat
> distribution. It is not as bad as I expected (see attached greg1.png)
> but not good enough. I think it is because if your number is close to 1,
> the next will also be. And you can get there by accident, so that is
> probably why there is that peak close to 1. Removing the pi from your
> equation helps a lot. I don't feel like doing a more complete analysis
> now.


Wow, thanks!
And thanks for the pointer to the Mersenne

Post a reply to this message