Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu From: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Yet another pseudo-random number generator Message-ID: <4297@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> Date: 15 Feb 89 21:39:22 GMT References: <7383@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <5269@cognos.UUCP> <9653@smoke.BRL.MIL> Sender: news@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu Reply-To: schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) Organization: Pennsylvania State University, Computer Science Lines: 11 In-reply-to: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) In article <9653@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke (Doug Gwyn ) writes: >Virtually all PRNG schemes in common use have provable >statistical behavior. That doesn't mean they're always >suitable. In fact I'm not enthised about that CACM article. Didn't the article state that the generators they talked about were to be considered a lower bound in quality? In other words, there is now no excuse to use a |worse| PRNG than the ones in the article. -- Scott Schwartz