On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 12:40 PM, 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
<[email protected]> wrote:
> ?. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
> 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
> 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
> 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 9 6 8 14 7 12 9 1 15 2 15 3 13 3
>
> ?. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
> 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
> 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
> 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
>
>
> one less leading 2 in first example. 47 leading 2s, correct result. 48
> leading 2s and everything is 2.
So?
Consider this:
?.4#4
2 0 0 2
4{.?.400#4
2 0 2 0
The size of the right argument influences the values generated at each position.
You would need to perform a large number of experiments to show a
statistical flaw in the results.
--
Raul
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
