From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,13a53a863bda3aeb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: johnherro@aol.com Subject: Re: Source for Random Number Generator Date: 1997/02/11 Message-ID: <19970211223601.RAA16641@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 218113339 references: x-admin: news@aol.com organization: AOL http://www.aol.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-02-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > ...this sequence is anything but random.... If you want > to see the problem [graph] the data. Either take pairs > of numbers and use them as x and y coordinate values > or better plot triples in three dimensions. Everything will > line up in lines or planes, with large empty spaces in > between. You're right; the autocorrelation function is really atrocious. Of course, the random number generator built into an Ada 95 compiler is likely to be much better, but I assume the original poster, Kevin Cronin, wanted to see source, or perhaps he was asking because he has an Ada 83 compiler. I vaguely remember reading a long time ago about how great is the power residue method of generating pseudo-random numbers, but I never checked the autocorrelation. If Kevin really needs source, maybe we could continue this discussion further and try other schemes, like multiplying two large numbers and keeping the *middle* (instead of the low end, as in the power residue method). I'm sure some mathematicians out there can come up with some really good source. - John Herro Software Innovations Technology http://members.aol.com/AdaTutor ftp://members.aol.com/AdaTutor