On Tue 19 Feb, Roger Horne wrote: > > The question of the randomness of numbers is dealt with in the > Perl Cookbook as: > > ## > Problem > > You want to generate numbers that are more random than > Perl's random numbers. Limitations of your C library's > random number generator seeds will sometimes cause problems. > The sequence of pseudo-random numbers may repeat too soon > for some applications.
I do *not* believe we're dealing with a random number generator that is simply poor quality. Even the poorest random number generators are uniform - our rand() isn't. No, we don't have a poor random number generator we've got a fundamentally broken one. The difference is that a poor one is tolerable but a broken one can and should be fixed. Please would people stop assuming that I'm quibbling over quality when I am in fact trying to point out a fundamental flaw. It's like a hire-car rep trying to tell a complaining customer that the quality of the car cannot be guaranteed when the hapless customer has been given a dead camel! > Solution > > Use a different random number generator, such as those provided by > the Math::Random and Math::TrulyRandom modules from CPAN: Unfortunately both of these are written in C and cannot simply be installed in the RISC OS version of Perl. A better solution would be to fix the bug in UnixLib rand() in the first place, or perhaps replace it altogether. > (Not that I understand any of it. Random numbers to me are things > that my fingers type in unintentionally when I try to enter a PIN.) It would seem that the author of UnixLib rand() may have had the same problem. :-) -- James Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Based in Southam, Cheltenham, UK. PGP key available ID: 3FBE1BF9 Fingerprint: F19D803624ED6FE8 370045159F66FD02
