Timeline for Random number generation, without built-in random number generation libraries [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
51 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2014 at 22:02 | history | closed |
Howard Fors Peter Taylor John Dvorak Doorknob |
Duplicate of Build a random number generator that passes the Diehard tests | |
| Mar 1, 2014 at 19:45 | comment | added | Peter Taylor | That's a really rubbish (not to mention ambiguous) definition of random. | |
| Mar 1, 2014 at 16:32 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 1, 2014 at 22:02 | |||||
| Mar 1, 2014 at 4:44 | history | reopened |
TheDoctor Victor Stafusa Abhijit user15259 Justin |
||
| Feb 26, 2014 at 23:29 | comment | added | TheDoctor | @Victor - yep that works. Now we need 1 more reopen vote... | |
| Feb 26, 2014 at 23:11 | comment | added | Victor Stafusa | @TheDoctor What about it now? | |
| Feb 26, 2014 at 23:11 | history | edited | Victor Stafusa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixing a rule
|
| Feb 26, 2014 at 23:08 | comment | added | TheDoctor |
@Victor - that seems somewhat contradictory to the bullet right above it. It would also open up a vulnerability to answers like return 4
|
|
| Feb 26, 2014 at 19:08 | comment | added | Victor Stafusa | @TheDoctor I edited your question to add a rule (and hopefully reopen your question). Tell me if you are ok with it. | |
| Feb 26, 2014 at 19:07 | history | edited | Victor Stafusa | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Rule about quality of the generated numbers
|
| Feb 25, 2014 at 5:55 | comment | added | Claudia |
@thedoctor If you're going to disallow GolfScript, disallow J and APL. I worked around it with mine in allowing the function declaration to not be counted. Nothing like seeing APL not too far ahead of the pack because String foo() is no longer counted.
|
|
| Feb 24, 2014 at 23:08 | review | Reopen votes | |||
| Feb 24, 2014 at 23:35 | |||||
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:48 | history | edited | TheDoctor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Defined "randomness"
|
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:26 | history | closed |
user12205 manatwork Justin user10766 Timtech |
Duplicate of Build a random number generator that passes the Diehard tests | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:25 | answer | added | Digital Trauma | timeline score: 3 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:18 | answer | added | unclemeat | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:10 | answer | added | qwr | timeline score: 4 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:04 | answer | added | Tobia | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:00 | comment | added | Doorknob | -1 for forbidding golfscript, per my "tradition" of sorts of downvoting these sorts of restrictions. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:00 | comment | added | Victor Stafusa | @Tobia I know, but this is not the point. My suggestion was solely with the purpose of fixing the text in the question, not to define exactly what is or what is not a pseudo-random generator. The program when runned should be able to generate any number from 0 to 100. If you do have a better suggestion, drop it here. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:59 | answer | added | blabla999 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:54 | comment | added | Tobia | @Victor that's not true. Most pseudo-random generators included in language libraries are not "able to output different numbers when ran multiple times", unless you call a specific function, usually called Randomize(), passing it an external value. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:49 | answer | added | Dennis | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:30 | answer | added | Paul Muir | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:27 | answer | added | David Herrmann | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:15 | answer | added | microbian | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:12 | answer | added | user12205 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 21:10 | answer | added | Kirill Kulakov | timeline score: 5 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:55 | comment | added | TheDoctor | @microbian - yes, you can use GUIDs | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:52 | answer | added | Victor Stafusa | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:51 | comment | added | Jonathan Van Matre | Did we get an answer on GUIDs? Does that count as "built-in randomness function"? (I lean toward yes, myself.) | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:37 | answer | added | user15259 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:35 | comment | added | Victor Stafusa | @TheDoctor. I suggest that you edit the question with something like this: "NOTE: The program is random enough if it is able to output different numbers when runned multiple times and may generate any integer number in the interval 0 to 100". | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:29 | comment | added | user12205 | @Victor A major problem will be, how random is "random"? Without an objective way of defining it, this should be closed as "opinion-based", and with an objective way of defining it, in my opinion this would be a duplicate. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:23 | comment | added | Victor Stafusa | This question does not requires that the random number generators passes any diehard tests, and without this requirement, it is possible to use a different strategy to golf it. Further, the output range is distinct. This way, an answer that was invalid in the old question could be the winner here. So, it does not seems to be a duplicate for me, even if it is a very similar question. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:01 | review | Close votes | |||
| Feb 24, 2014 at 22:26 | |||||
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:00 | comment | added | yo' | @microbian ok good to know :) | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 20:00 | comment | added | microbian | @tohecz, actually my comment about guids was for the OP. Totally agree with you. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:59 | comment | added | user12205 | @tohecz what I'm trying to say is that this question is opinion-based as the definition of "random" is open to debate. Oh and TheDoctor, here's a quote from that question: "This function must not call upon any libraries or other functions that were not also written as part of the program, especially calls to /dev/random or a language's built-in rand() library. More specifically, you are limited to the basic operators of the language you are working in, such as arithmetic, array access, and conditional flow control statements." | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:59 | answer | added | Victor Stafusa | timeline score: 2 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:57 | comment | added | yo' | @microbian you mean the stuff where you shake your mouse? That doesn't fall into the "algorithmic PRG" category, that's true. However, nothing based on human action is quite considered random. (More a philosophical than mathematical question, let's rather avoid this discussion. However, as long as there's any pattern in the human's behaviour and any pattern in the receptors precision, it can be somehow measured.) | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:57 | comment | added | Howard | I know the link but that doesn't change my view that a question should not restrict the languages. And the other question reads Build a random number generator which clearly excludes built-in generators. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:54 | comment | added | TheDoctor | @Howard - first off, see the link next to the language restriction, and second of all, that question does not restrict the use of built-in functions | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:53 | comment | added | microbian | What about guids? | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:53 | comment | added | yo' | @ace there's no random generator. The only truly random one that you could have would be based probably on some quantum mechanics, but are you sure you're able to make the two measurements ortogonal? Anything software-based will be pseudo-random, since it's proved that for every PRG there exists a statistical tests that distinguishes it from a random sequence. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:53 | answer | added | undergroundmonorail | timeline score: 1 | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:49 | history | edited | TheDoctor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 41 characters in body
|
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:43 | comment | added | Howard | Moreover it seems to be a duplicate (codegolf.stackexchange.com/q/10553/1490). | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:41 | comment | added | user12205 | I would recommend you give an objective definition of "random". Is pseudorandom enough? Or does it have to be true random? In the latter case, how do you test it? (E.g. Diehard tests? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diehard_tests ) | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:39 | comment | added | Howard | Because I was typing the moment you commented: -1 because of arbitrarily restricting the languages accepted. | |
| Feb 24, 2014 at 19:33 | history | asked | TheDoctor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |