flame about random numbers

Thread View: ont.micro

2 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

2 total messages Started by anthony Fri, 04 Jan 1985 19:29

#66

Author: anthony
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1985 19:29

17 lines
1252 bytes

	I recently did some statistical tests on the random numbers
produced by an IBM PC, Apple II+, and a Commodore 64. I had each
machine generate 1,000,000 random numbers which where then transformed
to the digits 0 through 9 (inclusive). The statistical tests that
followed indicate that the Commodore 64 and Apple are horrible when
producing supposedly (pseudo) random numbers. The C64 was worse than
the Apple. The numbers produced by the PC where almost too good to be
true.
	I guess any games that rely on random number generation (and
other software for modelling, simulation etc.) are not as unique each
time as one may be led to think.

	Any comments by hackers out there ???

-- 
Anthony Ayiomamitis   {ihnp4|decvax|utzoo|utcsrgv}!utcs!utzoo!utcsstat!anthony

Re: flame about random numbers

#67

Author: Gregory Dudek
Date: Fri, 04 Jan 1985 20:56

9 lines
1087 bytes

With respect to your criticism of the random numbers generated by the Apple II,
are you aware that the numbers are dependent on (cycled by) the delays
before each character of input is recieved.  i.e. while the machine
is busy waiting for keyboard input, it increments a counter used in
random number generation.  Consequently, unless your tests on the 
generators accounted for this, I don't think the results are really all
that valid in many contexts (especially in the context of games  -- which
you referred to).
   Greg Dudek.

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads