ambassador at fourthworld.com
Mon Nov 17 18:07:26 CST 2008
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.
Managing Editor, revJournal
Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
More information about the use-livecode