🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan12.132319.6437@cbis.ece.drexel.edu>, chaas@coe.drexel.edu (Chuck Haas) writes:
> There was an article in today's (1/12/93) New York Times (page 1, section
> C) about some IBM researchers who found deficiencies in "standard" random
> number generators when using some crystallographic type of test.  Anyone
> on the net who would care to add details?  

For those who do not have the Times, the article says, " . . . the scientists
showed that five of the most popular computer programs for generating streams
of random numbers produced errors when they were used in a simple mathematical
model of the behavior of atoms in a magnetic crystal."  

Unfortunately (and understandably) the article does not identify the 5 
algorithms.  However, the article cites the original report from Ferrenberg et
al. in the Dec. 7 issue of Physical Review Letters.  I would be grateful if
someone with access to PRL would post the five generators.