On Mar 3, 4:47 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 3, 2:49 pm, Carl Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 3, 3:40 pm, Mensanator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Notice anything funny about the "random" choices? > > > > import sympy > > > import time > > > import random > > > > f = [i for i in sympy.primerange(1000,10000)] > > > > for i in xrange(10): > > > f1 = random.choice(f) > > > print f1, > > > f2 = random.choice(f) > > > print f2, > > > C = f1*f2 > > > ff = None > > > ff = sympy.factorint(C) > > > print ff > > > > ## 7307 7243 [(7243, 1), (7307, 1)] > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)] > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)] > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)] > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)] > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)] > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)] > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)] > > > ## 8563 2677 [(2677, 1), (8563, 1)] > > > ## 4091 6829 [(4091, 1), (6829, 1)] > > > > As in, "they're NOT random". > > > > The random number generator is broken by the sympy.factorint() > > > function. > > > > Random.choice() works ok if the factorint() function commented out. > > > > ## 6089 1811 None > > > ## 6449 1759 None > > > ## 9923 4639 None > > > ## 4013 4889 None > > > ## 4349 2029 None > > > ## 6703 8677 None > > > ## 1879 1867 None > > > ## 5153 5279 None > > > ## 2011 4937 None > > > ## 7253 5507 None > > > > This makes sympy worse than worthless, as it f***s up other modules. > > > Dude, relax. > > > It's just a bug--probably sympy is messing with the internals of the > > random number generator. It would be a simple fix. Instead of > > b****ing about it, file a bug report. > > I did. > > > Or better yet, submit a patch. > > I would if I knew what the problem was. > > I posted it here because someone recommended it. > I'm simply un-recommending it. Those who don't care > needn't pay any attention. Those who do should be > glad that faults are pointed out when found.
1. You can point out the faults of a program without insults and vulgarity 2. You must be terribly difficult to please if one bug is enough to recommend against a program as "worse than worthless" 3. You must be terribly naive if you expect a freeware program with a version number of 0.5.12 not to have bugs Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
