Re: Random numbers
- From: Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Dec 2007 14:53:38 +0200
quasi <quasi@xxxxxxxx> writes:
On 21 Dec 2007 14:33:08 +0200, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John <iamachamp@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Given a function that returns a random number between 1-5, write one
that returns a random number between 1-7 for the case when it should
be integer and for the case it can be real.
int rand1to7i()
{
int r1=rand1to5i();
if(r1==5) { r1+=rand1to5i()/2; }
return r1;
}
Fatally flawed.
Wrong. Care to back up your claim? Between you and me, I
reckon you've not thought about my response enough.
double rand1to7d()
{
return rand1to5d()+(rand1to5d()-1)/2;
}
Inefficient -- uses 2 RNG calls, instead of 1.
Wrong. If you stretch the numbers out, you'll leave gaps
between them, these aren't actual reals, you did realise
that, right? You *need* 2 calls to ensure that you leave
no gaps.
Sheesh,
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Random numbers
- From: quasi
- Re: Random numbers
- References:
- Random numbers
- From: John
- Re: Random numbers
- From: Phil Carmody
- Re: Random numbers
- From: quasi
- Random numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: Random numbers
- Next by Date: Re: area of irregular size rectangle
- Previous by thread: Re: Random numbers
- Next by thread: Re: Random numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
