From: Nicolas George on
"Peter Olcott" wrote in message
<nLudneWj6ZvjtibWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
> The random number generator was not as random as I thought.

The flaw is not is the random number generator, it is in your algorithm.

That has been explained several times. Did you even read the answers that
you got?
From: Peter Olcott on

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> wrote in
message news:4bbb33ce$0$8281$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr...
> "Peter Olcott" wrote in message
> <nLudneWj6ZvjtibWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
>> The random number generator was not as random as I
>> thought.
>
> The flaw is not is the random number generator, it is in
> your algorithm.
>
> That has been explained several times. Did you even read
> the answers that
> you got?

The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
reference.


From: Nicolas George on
"Peter Olcott" wrote in message
<XIKdnW0Q_5JPoSbWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
> The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
> generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
> widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
> reference.

No. For, hopefully, the last time, the flaw is the way you use the random
numbers, that will lead to a cycle that is _always_ much smaller than what
you expect.

I have explained it in great detail in a recent messages, other have
confirmed it. If you refuse our help, I do not see why I should spend more
time answering your messages.
From: Peter Olcott on

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> wrote in
message news:4bbb3e9b$0$30282$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr...
> "Peter Olcott" wrote in message
> <XIKdnW0Q_5JPoSbWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
>> The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
>> generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
>> widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
>> reference.
>
> No. For, hopefully, the last time, the flaw is the way you
> use the random
> numbers, that will lead to a cycle that is _always_ much
> smaller than what
> you expect.
>
> I have explained it in great detail in a recent messages,
> other have
> confirmed it. If you refuse our help, I do not see why I
> should spend more
> time answering your messages.

I don't really need to talk about this thread anymore. I was
done with it more than a week ago.


From: Peter Olcott on

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> wrote in
message news:4bbb3e9b$0$30282$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr...
> "Peter Olcott" wrote in message
> <XIKdnW0Q_5JPoSbWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
>> The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
>> generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
>> widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
>> reference.
>
> No. For, hopefully, the last time, the flaw is the way you
> use the random
> numbers, that will lead to a cycle that is _always_ much
> smaller than what
> you expect.

Also it was not always much smaller than I expected. Testing
confirmed that it was only much smaller than I expected
about 30% of the time.

>
> I have explained it in great detail in a recent messages,
> other have
> confirmed it. If you refuse our help, I do not see why I
> should spend more
> time answering your messages.