Thanks for the responses, but I think there is an issue here. I figured a sort value was assigned to each item, and certainly a larger value of n in random(n) gives, what, more room to move?
I would expect 1000 iterations of random(3) to give an even spread of 1's, 2's and 3's. It does, of course. Howwever, randomizing, through 1000 iterations, my three items with random(3) yields a list heavily weighted in favor of item 1. It appears far more often, repeatably, than it ought to. Why item 1? With random(100) the dispersion is as expected. The value of n has to be about 15 or more to yield what looks like a reasonable output, at least with three or four items, the only options I tested. I don't get why. Craig Newman _______________________________________________ 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
