If there is a catch, it might be this:
Although the Diehard test results are a strong indication of
randomness, it remains to be proved that the cellular automaton
has a period of adequate length. Proofs regarding the period and
other characteristics of cellular automata have been
demonstrated in previous research; see for example [4] and [5].
Proof and analysis of this particular automaton's
characteristics is a task for future research.- Don On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 18:36 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Computers + random = can of worms. > > Has anyone seen this: > > http://home.southernct.edu/~pasqualonia1/ca/report.html#files > > They are claiming impressive speed and high quality for a random number > generator. The code is compact and small, much nicer than mt19937 and > the speed seems to blow mt19937 out of the water. > > I haven't looked at any papers on this and I'm wondering how good it is. > > Here is quote: > > > The cellular automaton outperforms the GSL random number > generators, being more than three times as fast as the GSL > generators. > > The following table shows the mean time for 10 runs of each > generator, with each run producing 10 million integers. Source > code for both the GSL generators and the cellular automaton was > compiled using GCC version 4.1.0 with the -O2 optimization flag. > > RNG: Mean time to produce 10 million integers: > > cellular automaton 0.062000 seconds > gsl_rng_taus 0.200000 seconds > gsl_rng_gfsr4 0.200000 seconds > gsl_rng_mt19937 0.223000 seconds > gsl_rng_ranlxd1 2.652000 seconds > > > - Don > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
