clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> That's actually a pretty neat spreadsheet to illustrate why that
> approach is wrong.
They say stick with what you're good at. ;)
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
> But then you take those non-uniformly distributed random numbers and
> apply a second transformation function, G(x)=x^n, and this time you fail
> to account for the fact that this transformation again changes the
> numbers' distribution.
Ah. Because now you don't have a function describing the probability of the
G(x) data. Right.
Post a reply to this message