Rob Dixon wrote:
> "R. Joseph Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm wondering if there is an issue with the random function in terms of scaling.
> [snip data]
> >
> > Needless to say, that is a lot of . Is there any alternativcollisionse random
>
On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 09:30:12PM -, Rob Dixon wrote:
> Careful inspection shows that each of your random numbers is exactly
> divisible by 3.0517578125. Dividing your range of 10 by this
> figure (magically, for those who know their powers of two) gives
> 32768, showing that 'rand' is in
"R. Joseph Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if there is an issue with the random function in terms of scaling. I
> have been testing a merge sort, and I noticed
that when my test, built by pushing rand(10) a given number of times in
"R. Joseph Newton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering if there is an issue with the random function in terms of
scaling. I have been testing a merge sort, and I noticed that when my test,
built by pushing rand(10) a given number of times into
Hi,
I'm wondering if there is an issue with the random function in terms of scaling. I
have been testing a merge sort, and I noticed that when my test, built by pushing
rand(10) a given number of times into it, starts getting much higher than 10,000
items, the rnadom numbers start clumpin
