Hi Kacper,
thanks a lot, included in SVN 442.
/// Jürgen
On 08/22/2014 12:03 AM, Kacper Gutowski
wrote:
I don't think there is anything to gain by changing the main LCG part
given the constraints. I don't know how go
Oh, I see you already fixed the bias exatly the way I wanted you to
in r440 even before I posted that :)
I still recommend using xorshift premutation instead of bit reversal
and iterating ⎕RL only once per output value.
-k
I don't think there is anything to gain by changing the main LCG part
given the constraints. I don't know how good are the parameters used by
GNU APL but they should be okay since those are the ones proposed by Knuth.
LCGs have a number of well known weaknesses, one of which is that their
less si
Hi Blake,
I did in the past. Problem is this:
the normal random allows you to set the seed (srandom()) but not to
retrieve it. However retrieving the seed is necessary to localize
⎕RL.
I then look into the other method of random() to set the seed
(i
Why not use random(3) (or are you)?
Thanks.
Blake
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Juergen Sauermann <
juergen.sauerm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Hi Kacper,
>
> thanks for reporting this. Should be improved in SVN 439.
>
> /// Jürgen
>
>
>
> On 08/20/2014 06:47 AM, Kacper Gutowski wrote:
>
>> Cu
Hi Kacper,
thanks for reporting this. Should be improved in SVN 439.
/// Jürgen
On 08/20/2014 06:47 AM, Kacper Gutowski wrote:
Currently GNU APL uses LCG with modulus 2⋆64 and then reduces values modulo
desired range. This, beside being slightly biased for ranges not dividing
the modulus, yi
Currently GNU APL uses LCG with modulus 2⋆64 and then reduces values modulo
desired range. This, beside being slightly biased for ranges not dividing
the modulus, yields reduced periods when range is power of two.
?10 16⍴16
11 2 13 12 15 6 1 16 3 10 5 4 7 14 9 8
11 2 13 12 15 6 1 16 3 10 5
