Well... I think we can agree that if ?. were replaced with 0: that that would not be random enough.
So there has to be a better way of talking about this issue. If the current test suite is looking for hard coded results from ?. -- and I think it does -- then of course changing the ?. implementation would require careful update of the test suite, and this would become an ongoing future issue if the underlying implementation changed. So I think that that level of effort is what you are talking about?? Thanks, -- Raul On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:58 AM bill lam <[email protected]> wrote: > > Even ?. is not good, it won't change. Its purpose is to provide repeatable > random data for testing, it doesn't matter if it is not random enough. > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 11:41 PM Julian Fondren <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 2020-07-19 10:31, Brian Schott wrote: > > > Yes, I see the problem you are describing better now. > > > This behavior for powers of 2 is dissimilar with other power bases. > > > It suggests a flaw in the algorithm for ?. . > > > > > > > > > ?.2^11 > > > 1826 > > > ?.2^12 > > > 1826 > > > ?.2^13 > > > 1826 > > > NB. compared to the following > > > ?.3^11 > > > 35532 > > > ?.3^12 > > > 212679 > > > ?.3^13 > > > 1275561 > > > > #@~."1 (?."0 ,: ?.) 2^i.20 > > 7 18 > > #@~."1 (?."0 ,: ?.) 3^i.20 > > 13 20 > > > > It's only not as obvious with powers of 3. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
