Not to sound like a specialist but I've read quite a bit on randomness theory.
1st, nothing is truely random.
Calculating something truely random is of truely infinite complexity.
2nd, celular automata are just like digits in a number (or sequence of #s)
BUT consider each to be individually
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:04 AM, Nelson Zink wrote:
Computational
results are predictable, completion time wobbles. The finer time is
cut, the
greater the unpredictability.
The problem I see is that the ruler you use to measure the time is not
independent. You are using a timer based on
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 12:54 PM, Ray G. Miller wrote:
Adding three more zeros yielded:
1057948840.14027500152587890625000
1057948841.41388595104217529296880
1057948842.74860799312591552734380
1057948848.56447696685791015625000
1057948852.67774403095245361328120
From: Dar Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can get even shorter times on the longs, if you throw away the
first long of each type. For example...
put the long seconds into junk
Put that just before your first use of the long seconds. Do likewise
with other longs.
The original way:
the
the ticks is the smallest unit I think...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nelson Zink
Sent: Thursday, 10 July, 2003 04:31
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Smaller than milliseconds?
Is there any way to access a time
the ticks is the smallest unit I think...
Actually, ticks are 1/60 of a second, whereas MC/Rev supports
milliseconds (1/1000 of a second). Dar, I think the long seconds
returns milliseconds as well, but in a slightly different format: I
opened the message box and typed:
put the milliseconds
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 09:57 AM, Ken Ray wrote:
Dar, I think the long seconds
returns milliseconds as well, but in a slightly different format: I
opened the message box and typed:
put the milliseconds the long seconds
and got this:
1057852538054 1057852538.054
Identical, except
1057853216369 1057853216.369436
OS X 10.2.6 on MDD G4 dual 1.25 GHz. Nyah-nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
Test seem to indicate that I really get microseconds, yes, right down
to the microsecond.
(Some clever person can find out when we did the tests.)
What wimpy OS are you using? ;-)
You're
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 11:38 AM, Ken Ray wrote:
What wimpy OS are you using? ;-)
You're right! It's OS-dependent. The wimpy OS was Windows XP; I
checked it on my Mac (same config as yours) and I get the extra
microseconds. Cool!
It might not be XP's fault. I have used NT and Win2K
Ken Ray writes:
1057853216369 1057853216.369436
OS X 10.2.6 on MDD G4 dual 1.25 GHz. Nyah-nyah! Nyah! Nyah!
Test seem to indicate that I really get microseconds, yes, right down
to the microsecond.
(Some clever person can find out when we did the tests.)
What wimpy OS are you using?
Recently, Dar Scott wrote:
On my OS X, I get this:
the long seconds: 1057873624.51924 delta: 0.09
the ticks: 63472417471 delta: 0
the milliseconds: 1057873624527 delta: 0
the long ticks: 63472417471.80954 delta: 0.000778
the long milliseconds: 1057873624533.140991 delta: 0.014038
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 04:04 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
What do you folks get?
A headache, from looking at all those digits
OK, this has less digits.
on mouseUp
set the cursor to watch
put Upper bounds on time resolution (maybe 10 to 20 microseconds
high): LF into field Report
--
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 04:24 PM, Dar Scott wrote:
A headache, from looking at all those digits
OK, this has less digits.
But this is better. The first call to long seconds or long
milliseconds is thrown away on this one. It takes longer for some
reason.
on mouseUp
set the
Nelson,
If you're looking for a random number generator you should check out a
new kind of science by stephen wolfram. They are using an automata to
generate a map that contains extremely (he claimed completely) random
sequences. This should not be a computationally intensive process and,
On Thursday, July 10, 2003, at 09:12 PM, Nelson Zink wrote:
But do you have any reason to believe the processor clock and the long
seconds clock are not the same?
Generally no, but strictly? I suppose I do. My long seconds are being
displayed to 20 magnitudes of precision (with proper
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 08:30 PM, Nelson Zink wrote:
Is there any way to access a time period/measurement smaller than
milliseconds in either MetaCard or Rev?
the long seconds
I get microsecond resolution on OS X on my blue white and on my MDD
Macs. It may be different on other OS's.
16 matches
Mail list logo
