Dear Jonathan, thanks a lot for the link to this very interesting article!
However, a more useful graphical representation of the quality of PRNG’s would be to take consecutive pairs of random numbers as the (X,Y) coordinates of a point to plot. Non-uniform distributions are then easily visible to the naked eye. It is hard to see any quality differences in the graphs accompanying this article which are essentially big red rectangles. It is impossible to see with the naked eye whether the fluctuations in these graphs are simply due to randomness or to a shortfall of the associated algorithm. Does someone here happen to have the necessary plotting software at hand to provide these pictures, without too much effort? That would be great! Thank you! Best regards, Steffen 2009/11/11 Jonathan Yu <[email protected]> > I should note, I wrote an article on this awhile back. Take it with a > grain of salt, as I'm not an expert in the area; I just wrote bindings > for the ISAAC algorithm to Perl. > > http://jawnsy.wordpress.com/2009/06/04/performance-of-mathrandomisaac/ > > It compares the performance of multiple different PRNG modules (code > for this is in the Math::Random::ISAAC examples/ directory). I've > included charts of the distributions generated by them and benchmarks > of course. >
