On 17 Nov 2008, at 16:04, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Dave Cragg wrote: ... > The two scripts measure the number of repeated sequences that are > generated by the two methods. The first method has yet to produce a > repeated sequence here. ... > METHOD 1 (no resetting) Bingo. The psuedo-random algo used in Rev is pretty good as it is.
I'm not sure if you can safely draw that conclusion. (Although I've no reason to think it isn't pretty good.) My example script sliced the 25000 random numbers into sets of 5 and found no repeats among the sets. It's possible there were repeating sequences that crossed the "set boundaries".
Looking at the responses to my last mail, I'm not sure if I made my point clearly. (It wouldn't be the first time.) I was just wanting to point out the danger of repeatedly resetting the randomSeed with a random number (or any other technique that involves a risk of repeating the randomSeed value). The scripts I posted were to demonstrate a probably unwanted outcome that, although entirely predictable, is not always obvious.
Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
