🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16646@watdragon.waterloo.edu> ccplumb@rose.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:
<In article <1989Sep22.082034.1405@agate.berkeley.edu> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
<>> A trick recommended by the authors of
<>> _Numerical Recipes_ (in addition to their own, portable generators) is to
<>> "scramble " your generator by calling it twice;  the first time is
<>> used as an index to an array of numbers from the generator.
<>
<> Knuth recommends a better version of this - use two generators, one
<> to generate indices, one to generate values.
<
<No, if you read Knuth, he says using the same generator is better worst-
<case and at least as good on average.

I have read Knuth. What he says about using one generator instead
of two is:

	The randomizing effect would be quite minimized, because ....
	However, some similar approaches could be used: .... This is
	an inexpensive way to improve the randomness of a sequence
	which is already reasonably good.

	[This is the answer to question #5, section 3.2.2]

Did he recant in a later work? If so, could you provide the reference?

	<mike
--
That time we slept together				Mike Meyer
That's as far as it went				mwm@berkeley.edu
Yet though we're not quite lovers			ucbvax!mwm
You're more than a friend				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET