Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: "Reef Fish" <Large_Nassau_Grouper@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Apr 2005 10:17:02 -0700
Luis A. Afonso wrote:
> Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
> (GW-Basic 3.2)
>
>
>
> Strong prejudice still exists towards the "true random" vs
"pseudo-random"
> numbers (PRN).
No. There's no controversy regarding whether a generation process is
"random"
or "pseudorandom".
In the former, the next "random" number in a sequence is completely
unpreditable.
In the latter, the next "pseudorandom" number is usually completely
deterministic
opon the previous psudorandom nymbers in the sequence.
They both LOOK random.
Good pseudorandom number generators produce sequences that are
virtually
indistinguishable from those generated by a truly random process.
> This post deals with, precisely, a test (chi-squared) operated on
PRN.
Your test merely indicated the non-rejection of a hypothesis of a
uniform distribution in ONE dimension. You data may or may not
violated many other properties on a set of random numbers. For
example, the same generator may leave "holes" or unacceptably large
gaps in U(0,1) x U(0,1),
-- Bob.
-- Bob.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: Anon
- Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- References:
- Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: \"Luis A. Afonso\"
- Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Prev by Date: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Next by Date: Re: central moments after data transformation
- Previous by thread: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Next by thread: Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading