On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:26 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 4:24 PM, Travis L. Font [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here's random! I'm going to close my eyes think of some drinking
water
and running AT the same time and just start
2007. 12. 19, szerda keltezéssel 08.50-kor Jason Pruim ezt írta:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:26 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 4:24 PM, Travis L. Font [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Here's random! I'm going to close my eyes think
2007. 12. 19, szerda keltezéssel 09.24-kor Jason Pruim ezt írta:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Zoltán Németh wrote:
2007. 12. 19, szerda keltezéssel 08.50-kor Jason Pruim ezt írta:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:26 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Zoltán Németh wrote:
2007. 12. 19, szerda keltezéssel 08.50-kor Jason Pruim ezt írta:
On Dec 19, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:26 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 4:24 PM, Travis L. Font [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 1:50 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5:10 PM -0600 12/15/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:07 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
Once again, we're not trying to prove order. Order obviously exists.
I'm not sure I'd agree that order exists in the first
[snip]
This is the thread that doesn't end. Yes, it goes on and on, my
friend. Some people started typing here, not knowing what it was,
and they'll just keep replying-all forever just because this is the
thread that doesn't end
[/snip]
This thread lacks order.
--
PHP General Mailing
2007. 12. 18, kedd keltezéssel 10.09-kor Daniel Brown ezt írta:
On Dec 18, 2007 1:50 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 5:10 PM -0600 12/15/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:07 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
Once again, we're not trying to prove order. Order obviously
On Dec 18, 2007 10:39 AM, Zoltán Németh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip!]
that's because the thread could end only if we all knew the exact nature
of random and order ;)
I'm Nostradamus-ly predicting that will happen around post 101.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone Numbers Go Here!]
[They're
Ha ha, it does! Admittedly, I haven't read every line of every post in
this thread, but so far I haven't seen any mention of Nazis (until now).
Godwin's Law breaking down
Regards,
Bruce
Jay Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] 19/12/2007 4:39:15 a.m.
[snip]
This is the thread that doesn't end.
Here's random! I'm going to close my eyes think of some drinking water
and running AT the same time and just start pushing numbers on the pad
however way my fingers desire while not thinking about it!
Here: 7914718845748671454531587148354531452141857
Good enough?
-Travis
On Dec 18, 2007 4:24 PM, Travis L. Font [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's random! I'm going to close my eyes think of some drinking water
and running AT the same time and just start pushing numbers on the pad
however way my fingers desire while not thinking about it!
Here:
On Tue, 2007-12-18 at 16:26 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 18, 2007 4:24 PM, Travis L. Font [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's random! I'm going to close my eyes think of some drinking water
and running AT the same time and just start pushing numbers on the pad
however way my fingers desire
At 5:10 PM -0600 12/15/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:07 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
Once again, we're not trying to prove order. Order obviously exists.
I'm not sure I'd agree that order exists in the first place, much less
randomness or disorder. They could all be
On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:07 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
Once again, we're not trying to prove order. Order obviously exists.
I'm not sure I'd agree that order exists in the first place, much less
randomness or disorder. They could all be solely our human incorrect
interpretation.
And I've
On Dec 15, 2007 6:10 PM, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, December 12, 2007 11:07 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
Once again, we're not trying to prove order. Order obviously exists.
I'm not sure I'd agree that order exists in the first place, much less
randomness or disorder. They
At 11:59 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
Yeah, but we haven't proven order yet either. :-)
Order exists all around us.
Maybe around you, but I have a wife, two daughters, and four female
grandchildren.
I only need to look around
tedd wrote:
At 11:59 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
Yeah, but we haven't proven order yet either. :-)
Order exists all around us.
Maybe around you, but I have a wife, two daughters, and four female
grandchildren.
that would
On Dec 14, 2007 9:35 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* You know, the point -- what we were talking about, not a point
on the top of my head. :-)
Beldar, when the High Master hears what you have said, he will
surely cut off your phlarg and hand it to you.
--
Daniel P. Brown
[Phone
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 10:36 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
omg this is so off topic it's liable to come full circle - actually circles
seem pretty
damned orderly ... which just leaves the question as to whether circles
exist or that
we merely projection them onto
On Dec 14, 2007 11:01 AM, Jason Pruim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip!]
I don't know much about women... Only married to one, but My Son
certainly throws me into chaos at times (Daddy, what does this button
do? *Computer shuts off because he found the power strip...)
[snip!]
*Puts on his
On Dec 14, 2007 11:10 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 10:36 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
omg this is so off topic it's liable to come full circle - actually
circles seem pretty
damned orderly ... which just leaves the question as
On Dec 14, 2007 10:36 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
omg this is so off topic it's liable to come full circle - actually circles
seem pretty
damned orderly ... which just leaves the question as to whether circles exist
or that
we merely projection them onto reality, which is great
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 11:01 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007 10:36 AM, Jochem Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
omg this is so off topic it's liable to come full circle - actually circles
seem pretty
damned orderly ... which just leaves the question as to whether circles
exist or
On Dec 14, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Jochem Maas wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 11:59 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
Yeah, but we haven't proven order yet either. :-)
Order exists all around us.
Maybe around you, but I have a wife, two
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 11:01 -0500, Jason Pruim wrote:
On Dec 14, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Jochem Maas wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 11:59 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
Yeah, but we haven't proven order yet either. :-)
Order exists all
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 16:36 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 11:59 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
Yeah, but we haven't proven order yet either. :-)
Order exists all around us.
Maybe around you, but I have a wife,
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 3:35 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:16 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
[snip]
Where's Crayon?
[/snip]
Steel Cage Death Match with Brad.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
Without order there cannot be randomness.
Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
This is one of those yin-yang things.
There is simply order and randomness existing in our minds. There is
no order, nor randomness, existing in
tedd wrote:
At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
external script intervention required to initiate or maintain it.
My guess is that if there
At 2:46 PM -0500 12/10/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:37 -0800, Stephen Johnson wrote:
True randomization is only really possible in nature.
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know
At 2:32 PM -0500 12/10/07, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
Random numbers with Gauss distribution (normal distribution).
A correct alghoritm. Without aproximations, like Smaaps'
It is specially usefull for simulations in physics.
Check yourself, and have a fun.
-snip-
JanS
student of astronomy
on Warsaw
At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
external script intervention required to initiate or maintain it.
My guess is that if there was a time that
At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some computer-based simulation, i need to
generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
[snip!]
Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
On Dec 12, 2007 9:00 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
thing (at least as of yet) as a truly random number being generated by
a machine.
Unless the computer is tied to a
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some computer-based simulation, i need to
generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
[snip!]
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
Without order there cannot be randomness.
Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
You're random with disorder.
This is one of those yin-yang things.
Not really :)
There is
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:15 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 2:46 PM -0500 12/10/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:37 -0800, Stephen Johnson wrote:
True randomization is only really possible in nature.
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have
On 12/12/2007, Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 9:00 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 3:04 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
thing (at least as of yet) as a truly random number being generated
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 08:59 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
external script intervention required to initiate or maintain
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:15 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
Without order there cannot be randomness.
Without randomness, you wouldn't know what order was.
You're random with disorder.
[snip]
But maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
[/snip]
Maybe?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Dec 12, 2007 10:53 AM, Robin Vickery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you define for me where the machine stops and nature starts?
I mean, if I make a clock that uses the physical properties of a
pendulum to demarcate units of time then the pendulum is obviously
part of the machine.
But if I
On Dec 12, 2007 11:04 AM, Jay Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
But maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
[/snip]
Maybe?
In Tedd's defense, there's a fine line between genius and
insanity, and he keeps getting closer and closer to that genius side.
;-P
I don't
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:16 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 10:53 AM, Robin Vickery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you define for me where the machine stops and nature starts?
I mean, if I make a clock that uses the physical properties of a
pendulum to demarcate units of time
Robert Cummings wrote:
The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the greater
machine that is the universe.
heh, that makes me a browser. :-P
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Dec 12, 2007 11:26 AM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the greater
machine that is the universe.
As such, the deer is indeed part of the machine as are the decaying
isotopes that were probably formed in some process of
On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:26 AM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the
greater
machine that is the universe.
As such, the deer is indeed part of the machine as are the decaying
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 11:43 -0500, Jason Pruim wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 11:26 AM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the
greater
machine that is the universe.
As
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 17:50 +0100, Jochem Maas wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
The universe is the machine... all sub machines are part of the greater
machine that is the universe.
heh, that makes me a browser. :-P
Not IE I hope :B
Cheers,
Rob.
--
At 3:13 PM +0100 12/12/07, Jochem Maas wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
external script intervention required to
At 10:12 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 08:59 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
with a never-known seed that would update constantly, with no human or
external
At 11:43 AM -0500 12/12/07, Jason Pruim wrote:
*Gets ready to duck from all the non-deer eating people*
Drat!
There are lot's of things that are non-deer -- even ducks. But they
don't all eat people.
The world is getting out of whack again.
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com
At 10:04 AM -0600 12/12/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
But maybe Tedd is also a bit random and disorderly ;)
[/snip]
Maybe?
Hey! I resemble that remark.
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
--
PHP General Mailing List
At 11:00 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:15 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
Without order there cannot be randomness.
Without randomness, you wouldn't know
At 10:18 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:15 -0500, tedd wrote:
You most certainly have a point there. Our identification,
classification, and definition of order is really what's at issue.
Order and randomness are simply our perceptions of the world around
At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post, just because
the timeline and sample space is immense
At 10:15 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
There is simply order and randomness existing in our minds. There is
no order, nor randomness, existing in nature, it's our perception,
clarification, and categorization of nature that demands
On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post,
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 12:40 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:12 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 08:59 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 5:15 PM -0500 12/10/07, Daniel Brown wrote:
Just for fun, I decided to write out an algorithm to randomize
with a never-known seed that
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:16 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
Random seeming you mean. As mentioned in the original post, just
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:18 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:18 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:15 -0500, tedd wrote:
You most certainly have a point there. Our identification,
classification, and definition of order is really what's at issue.
Order and
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 11:00 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 10:15 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 2:22 PM -0600 12/10/07, Jay Blanchard wrote:
Without order there cannot be
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:15 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 09:00 -0500, tedd wrote:
There is simply order and randomness existing in our minds. There is
no order, nor randomness, existing in nature, it's our perception,
At 1:33 PM -0500 12/12/07, Nathan Nobbe wrote:
On Dec 12, 2007 1:16 PM, tedd
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just because someone said it, doesn't mean it's true.
pfft; just because you dont believe it doenst mean its false.
Nope, but I find it difficult o believe.
I
At 3:36 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:18 -0500, tedd wrote:
My opinion is always the same regardless of how many times I change it.
Contradiction. Change implies not the same. I'm sure your tongue was in
your cheek though when you wrote it :)
Cheers,
Rob
At 3:42 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Yes, but what if my disorder was random?
How could you prove it is random? Give me an example of something you
can put into disorder that doesn't use the premise of order? For
instance throwing a handful of sand into the air is expected to
At 3:35 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:16 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
truncated to the tens digit -- that was pretty random.
Random seeming
At 3:34 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
Just because we think, does not prove randomness, nor order, in
nature -- it only proves that we think about it.
Actually, order is proven. The fact that I can re-arrange objects into
an order
On Dec 12, 2007 3:42 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How could you prove it is random? Give me an example of something you
can put into disorder that doesn't use the premise of order? For
instance throwing a handful of sand into the air is expected to obey the
establish laws of
-Original Message-
From: tedd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 6:35 PM
To: PHP General list
Subject: RE: [PHP] Generating Random Numbers with Normal Distribution
At 3:42 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Yes, but what if my disorder
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:20 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 3:34 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
Just because we think, does not prove randomness, nor order, in
nature -- it only proves that we think about it.
Actually, order is proven.
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:21 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 3:35 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:16 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 10:17 AM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
In my ancient past I worked with a x-ray detector and we simply
truncated to the tens
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:34 -0500, tedd wrote:
At 3:42 PM -0500 12/12/07, Robert Cummings wrote:
Yes, but what if my disorder was random?
How could you prove it is random? Give me an example of something you
can put into disorder that doesn't use the premise of order? For
instance
On 10/12/2007, Nathan Nobbe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 5:29 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 14:22 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have occurred 13.7 billion
[snip]
...stuff...
[/snip]
It is also wise to remember that order and randomness are relative,
making each less or more so dependent upon observation and observation
changes the observed.
Furthermore 'random numbers with normal distribution' implies that there
is certain order to the randomness
True randomization is only really possible in nature, so I am not sure you
ever be completely happy with programming random numbers... But it may help
you get better results if you include srand() in your randomization code.
--
Stephen Johnson c | eh
The Lone Coder
http://www.thelonecoder.com
On Dec 10, 2007 2:37 PM, Stephen Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True randomization is only really possible in nature, so I am not sure you
ever be completely happy with programming random numbers... But it may
help
you get better results if you include srand() in your randomization code.
To: Stephen Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: AmirBehzad Eslami [EMAIL PROTECTED], PHP General list
php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Generating Random Numbers with Normal Distribution
On Dec 10, 2007 2:37 PM, Stephen Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True randomization is only
General list
Subject: Re: [PHP] Generating Random Numbers with Normal Distribution
On Dec 10, 2007 2:37 PM, Stephen Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
True randomization is only really possible in nature, so I am not sure you
ever be completely happy with programming random numbers... But it may
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 11:37 -0800, Stephen Johnson wrote:
True randomization is only really possible in nature.
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that
initial state was and we couldn't possibly
On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear list,
For some computer-based simulation, i need to
generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
It seems that PHP's rand() and mt_rand() functions return
uniformly distributed numbers which is not
stop... trying to make people think
bad... bad!!!
-Original Message-
From: Robert Cummings [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:47 AM
To: Stephen Johnson
Cc: AmirBehzad Eslami; PHP General list
Subject: Re: [PHP] Generating Random Numbers with Normal
General list
php-general@lists.php.net
Subject: Re: [PHP] Generating Random Numbers with Normal Distribution
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that
initial state was and we couldn't possibly
On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some computer-based simulation, i need to
generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
[snip!]
Unfortunately, because computers are logical, there's no such
thing (at least as of yet) as a truly random
On Dec 10, 2007 3:04 PM, Daniel Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For some computer-based simulation, i need to
generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
[snip!]
Unfortunately, because computers are
[snip]
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that
initial state was and we couldn't possibly calculate all the
interactions since, doesn't mean that everything since hasn't been
happening in accordance
On Dec 10, 2007 2:28 PM, AmirBehzad Eslami [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear list,
For some computer-based simulation, i need to
generate random numbers that have a normal distribution.
It seems that PHP's rand() and mt_rand() functions return
uniformly distributed numbers which is not suitable
bruce wrote:
if you really want to.. you can hook various devices up to your
serial/parallel port and take specific readings, and from there
compute some really great random numbers..
That's pretty much what /dev/random does for you.
/Per Jessen, Zürich
--
PHP General Mailing List
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 14:22 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that
initial state was and we couldn't possibly calculate all the
interactions since, doesn't
[snip]
Without order there cannot be randomness.
But is the reverse true?
[/snip]
Yes
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Dec 10, 2007 5:29 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 14:22 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Can you say for certain nature is truly random? Just because the seed
may have occurred 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what that
initial state was
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:32 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Without order there cannot be randomness.
But is the reverse true?
[/snip]
But disorder isn't necessarily random.
Cheers,
Rob.
--
...
SwarmBuy.com -
On Dec 10, 2007 5:39 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:32 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Without order there cannot be randomness.
But is the reverse true?
[/snip]
But disorder isn't necessarily random.
Unless you get into Shannon entropy,
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 17:45 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 5:39 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:32 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Without order there cannot be randomness.
But is the reverse true?
[/snip]
But disorder
Rob your sick ;-)
this thread made me think about the Observer Effect - probably the randomness is
just in your/my/his/her head :-P
or we're all green men or something.
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 17:45 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 5:39 PM, Robert Cummings
On Mon, December 10, 2007 1:37 pm, Stephen Johnson wrote:
ever be completely happy with programming random numbers... But it may
help
you get better results if you include srand() in your randomization
code.
srand and mt_srand have been no-ops (done internally once at startup)
since version
On Dec 10, 2007 5:56 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 17:45 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 5:39 PM, Robert Cummings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-12-10 at 16:32 -0600, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
Without order there cannot be
98 matches
Mail list logo
