Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: "\"Luis A. Afonso\"" <licas_@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 19:45:46 EDT
Bob
Thank you for the reply.
I use M.C. since 83-84. I need not to be persuaded that the method is useful.
Bob wrote:
<Good pseudorandom generators are. virtually indistinguishable from those .... >
I agree.
There are some questions I would like to ask about testing PRG:
1) are there a set of tests that could assure us that the Generator is fair, or
the comparison with a similar exact problem is necessary in order to be sure that it is a “good one”?
(This is my favourite approach, am I wrong?)
2) The “micro-holes” or “inadmissible”, as you prefer, are sufficient to discard the Generator?
3) The Generators are “specialised” i.e. good for one purpose bad for the others?
4) what you think about the randoms independence?
A final note: I did not intend, not at all, to say that the Chi--squared test is completely exempt of flaws. If you think that is my opinion you are wrong.
About the two dimensional [0,1]x[0,1] I made long ago some experiences in order to evaluate areas of figures. laying inside the square resulting “exact”.
Regards
licas_@xxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- References:
- Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: \"Luis A. Afonso\"
- Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Prev by Date: Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Next by Date: Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Previous by thread: Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Next by thread: Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
