🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug20.195901.2259@cc.tut.fi> vattu@cc.tut.fi (Vattulainen Ilpo) writes:
>>nmm@cl.cam.ac.uk (Nick Maclaren) writes:
>>Standard warnings:
>>
>>    2) Don't trust Numerical Recipes - about half of its techniques are
>>reliable, but the others contain serious traps.  
>
>	I agree.
 ...
>	are. But - do not use RAN3 (in Numerical Recipes ), if you 
>	want random bit-wise properties... This is due to my own 
>	experiences :-/

I think both people I've quoted above are being somewhat unfair to Numerical 
Recipes.  Perhaps it has changed in later editions, but in the original 
edition, it plainly says that none of the routines in the book are 
applicable to this very problem, and refers the reader to Knuth.  If you 
were burned by using RAN3 for a vector of random bits, you can't really blame
Press et al.

More generally, I think it's true of advice from most books (and certainly 
of that received over the net) that at least half of it contains traps for 
the unwary.  Saying this about Numerical Recipes in particular doesn't 
really convey any information.  

Thanks to both of the above for posting useful answers, as well as what 
I've picked out above.

Duncan Murdoch
dmurdoch@mast.queensu.ca