In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon 18 Feb, Justin Fletcher wrote:
> >
> > Did you run it over an infinite period of time ? The only thing
> > that is clear from empirical evidence is that on that run, things
> > were that way. Whilst it might be less than ideal...
>
> Ha! I'm not sure you've quite grasped the magnitude of the
> issue. I attached a small Perl program to my first post to
> demonstrate the problem. You can run that as many times as
> you like and you still get the same, *extremely* distorted,
> probability distribution. Please look at the problem before
> passing comment.
Still, it's empirical evidence; whilst it may be skewed there's very
little you can say from empirical evidence other than that over the
period... I said this.
> > You keep saying 'C's rand'; I don't know what you mean.
>
> I'm referring to Acorn C in each of the places where you
> asked this. The shared C library provides rand() but you
> have to link with AnsiLib to get _ANSI_rand().
Perl isn't built with Acorn C, though; if you want to comment on
the randomness of perl; you will have to use UnixLib.
You're commenting on two disperate issues.
> > Sorry if that seems critical, but your comments are unclear.
>
> No problem. :-)
>
--
Gerph {djf0-.3w6e2w2.226,6q6w2q2,2.3,2m4}
URL: http://www.movspclr.co.uk/
.... Eyes to the heavens, screaming at the sky;
Trying to send you messages, but choking on goodbye.
