Interestingly, as of 1.2 at least, the JDK-supplied PRNG is Knuth's 3.2.1 (linear congruential). I am +1 for adding additional PRNGs, but I would also recommend that if we do that we also include benchmark tests (like the ones here: http://csrc.nist.gov/rng/SP800-22b.pdf), performance metrics and clear documentation indicating what the relative strengths / weaknesses of the additional PRNGs are.
Huh. So why do I and others think so poorly of the JDK's default PRNG? Well,
I don't know about others, but I was just ignorant of that fact.
Well, the linear congruential generator is not that good, and generally advised against for serious scientific work (So, I will not use that because of that reason)
That depends entirely on what you mean by "serious scientific work." Different PRNGs have different properties that make them better (or worse) for specific purposes. Most practical applications require neither astronomical periods nor cryptographic security, so I would be careful about blanket statements.
Phil
There are much better one out there, like the
package Mark has been pointing at. So, you were not ignorant on this fact.
Cheers,
Kim
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
