Dave Cragg wrote:
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.)
There's the rub: when attempting to compare anything to a truly random
set, there's always the possibility that even repeating patterns may be
the result of randomness too. :)
But I think we're on the same page here: short of calling some
supercomputer over the web which uses some fancier means, monkeying with
Rev's built-in random function may not be much better than just leaving
it alone, which seems suitable for a great many practical applications.
--
Richard Gaskin
Managing Editor, revJournal
_______________________________________________________
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
