On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 05:51:09 +0200, Alfons Adriaensen wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2005 at 09:45:45AM +0100, Steve Harris wrote: > > > Yes, note that its not much good as a random number generator as > > its easily predictable, > > All 'psuedoramdom' generators are predictable, that doesn't make > them less 'good', except for cryptographic applications. > > > but in this case all thats required is that it > > produces noise that is approximatly white (ie. equal energy in each > > frequency band), and its efficient. > > It's a perfectly good choice for this application. Its only problem > is when you use it to generate random *bits*. Witm m = 2^N, the > lower n bits will form of cycle of lenght 2^n, so e.g. the LS bit is > just altermating 0,1,0,1,0,1 -- not very random.
True, but I'm casting it to a float, so the LS 7-ish bits will be lost anyway, and the ones above should have sufficiently long period that they won't be noticable, even if it weren't used for dithering :) - Steve
