"Phoenex" <rib### [at] sapopt> wrote:
> I think the PRNGAlvo, satisfies these small principles.

That may well be; however, given the lack of detailed analysis that would
substantially support this claim, and the availability of other, much better
tested and tried PRNGs with similar performance, I see absolutely no reason to
adopt PRNGAlvo as *the* new standard sophisticated RNG for POV-Ray.

I do see why you might be eager to have it established for this purpose, but I
guess others (like me) can't be blamed to currently regard PRNGAlvo as nothing
more than a private toy of yours - which may have good potential, but hasn't
proven that yet. To the contrary: Although my findings may turn out to be
insignificant in the end, but for now they do give rise to doubt about the
algorithm's quality.

The question isn't "would PRNGAlvo be good enough for POV-Ray" - the question
is, "would PRNGAlvo be significantly better for POV-Ray to prefer it over much
better analyzed, tested and tried algorithms". And to that question, I'd
clearly vote "no".

Post a reply to this message