Ilmari Karonen wrote:Now that's an interesting read. Ron is a person who makes "mistakes" in
> ["Followup-To:" header set to sci.math.]
> On 2010-07-30, Ron Shepard <ron-shep...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <i2tvn7$ld...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk>, n...@cam.ac.uk
>>> Parallel random number generation is not easy, and 99% of the stuff
>>> published on it is somewhere between grossly misleading and complete
>> I think in the parallel case, one would want to be able to generate
>> a seed to produce values that are guaranteed not to overlap with any
>> other node. Maybe something like
>> call RANDOM_NEW_SEED( old_seed, n, new_seed, my_node )
>> would be a sufficient interface. new_seed(:) would depend on
> Let me try to demonstrate, using a simplified (and admittedly somewhat
> Assume we have a "random oracle" R: Z -> [0,1) which takes as its
> Given such an oracle, we can construct a perfect PRNG P: Z -> [0,1)^N
> Now, what if we wanted several independent streams of random numbers?
> One _bad_ solution would be to define a new generator Q: Z -> [0,1)^N
> Clearly, the sequences returned by Q for different seed values would
> The _right_ solution, as I suggested above, would've been to redesign
> You can't just take any arbitrary PRNG, designed for generating a
contemporary scientific programming, but he always moves the scrum
forward in a useful way.
I notice that follow-ups are set to sci.math, which I've never really
I'm used to seeing the notation of functions from the point of abstract
So my question for you is going to be more of a request, namely, that
To reveal my naivete I would think a perfect prng would look like:
P: Z^N -> [0,1)^N
By the way, nice job to get the interval [0,1) correct. That's a
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.