On 9/21/10 6:40 AM, sebb wrote:
On 21 September 2010 09:40, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe:
Le 21/09/2010 10:08, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe:
Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre
On 9/21/10 3:34 AM, Luc Maisonobe wrote:
Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
Our code can be released under either a GPL or a commercial license.
Well, what about the Apache License then?
It is their code and I did n
On 21 September 2010 09:40, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote:
> 2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe :
>> Le 21/09/2010 10:08, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>>> 2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe :
Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>> Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
>
> [...]
> >
> > They do not use this kind of tricks in their implementation. By using
> > them in ours, it would make more clear our code is really an original
> > one and not derived from their GPL code.
> It sounds reasonable, but I'm thinking that it might be better to add
> the current code, an
2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe :
> Le 21/09/2010 10:08, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>> 2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe :
>>> Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
> Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
>
> Our code can be released under either a GPL or a commerc
Le 21/09/2010 10:08, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
> 2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe :
>> Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
Our code can be released under either a GPL or a commercial license.
>>> Well, what about
2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe :
> Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>>> Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
>>>
>>> Our code can be released under either a GPL or a commercial license.
>> Well, what about the Apache License then?
>
> It is their code and I did not
Le 21/09/2010 09:26, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>> Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
>>
>> Our code can be released under either a GPL or a commercial license.
> Well, what about the Apache License then?
It is their code and I did not use it. The main point is we
reimp
> Here is an extract from the answer from Pierre L'Ecuyer:
>
> Our code can be released under either a GPL or a commercial license.
Well, what about the Apache License then?
> There is also a Java implementation with multiple streams and
> substreams in SSJ: see the package rng:
> http://www.i
Thanks for the test. I give a +1 fir this (with the already mentioned
"but"'s like documentation etc.). Inclusion would also make it easier
for others to test it a bit.
2010/9/21 Luc Maisonobe :
> Le 20/09/2010 15:28, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
>
>> I would like to see/try a comparison betwee
Le 20/09/2010 14:40, Phil Steitz a écrit :
> On 9/20/10 6:30 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
>> The paper does not put any restriction on the algorithm. The
>> reference implementation in C on the other hand is limited to
>> non-commercial use only. In my implementation, I did not refer to
>> thi
Le 20/09/2010 15:28, Mikkel Meyer Andersen a écrit :
> I would like to see/try a comparison between the default and new PRNG
> under different conditions. Just to get an idea of how they perform.
I gave it a try. The version from yesterday was really slow (about 3
times slower than other generato
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 6:16 AM, Gilles Sadowski <
gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds OK, but we should verify somehow that the algorithm itself is
> > not patented. [...]
>
> This is probably not the place to start a discussion on the difference
> between patent and copyright :-
Hi,
2010/9/20 :
>
> - "Mikkel Meyer Andersen" a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it sounds interesting.
>>
>> A few comments:
>> 1) Does it support paralleled generation?
>
> No, it updates its bits pool using an iterative formula.
No worries - I was just curious. But maybe we should keep in m
> [...]
>
> Sounds OK, but we should verify somehow that the algorithm itself is
> not patented. [...]
This is probably not the place to start a discussion on the difference
between patent and copyright :-}
Copyright can apply to source code; neither patent nor copyright should
apply to algorith
- "Phil Steitz" a écrit :
> On 9/20/10 6:30 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As those subscribed to the commit list may have noticed, I have
> > added several new pseudo-random number generators to
> > commons-math.
> >
> > I should not have add such a feature without dis
- "Mikkel Meyer Andersen" a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I think it sounds interesting.
>
> A few comments:
> 1) Does it support paralleled generation?
No, it updates its bits pool using an iterative formula.
> 2) In regards to the user, which should be the default for e.g.
> sampling from probabil
On 9/20/10 6:58 AM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
[...]
2) In regards to the user, which should be the default for e.g.
sampling from probability distributions?
I have the same question for possibly replacing the default RNG in class
"UnitSphereRandomVectorGenerator".
Very good point. We made all
On 9/20/10 6:30 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote:
Hi all,
As those subscribed to the commit list may have noticed, I have
added several new pseudo-random number generators to
commons-math.
I should not have add such a feature without discussing on the
list before. It was a wrong move and I apolo
> [...]
> 2) In regards to the user, which should be the default for e.g.
> sampling from probability distributions?
I have the same question for possibly replacing the default RNG in class
"UnitSphereRandomVectorGenerator".
Gilles
--
> [...]
> So what do other think about this ?
> Should this really be included (in which case I will open a JIRA issue and
> resolve it immediately)
+1
Gilles
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For ad
Hi,
I think it sounds interesting.
A few comments:
1) Does it support paralleled generation?
2) In regards to the user, which should be the default for e.g.
sampling from probability distributions?
3) How is the performance compared to the existing algorithms in Commons Math?
Cheers, Mikkel.
20
22 matches
Mail list logo
