Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: "\"Luis A. Afonso\"" <licas_@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 00:56:00 EDT
Allen wrote:
>Wrong. Linear combination of normals => normal. T >distribution comes
>from dividing by the square root of a chi-square (which >your code does).
> >Each time two independent 20-sized samples were >>simulated and the sample
>> statistics t0 was calculated. Your code says 10.
> Frequencies of t0 in the interval
> [-1.201, +1.201]
>That's 2.101. It's correct in your code.
> (continuing to test my RNG).
>Please read the literature (e.g. Knuth or Marsaglia) >before continuing.
My comment:
What a confusion! Linear combination of normals? Absolutely not.
I simulated pairs of (independent) normal samples each of size 10 (yes, not 20, inattention) and found (by repetition) the experimental confidence interval. I am less interested (as an practical statistician) to learn about to find a good RNG than to test my <spade> ... since I have not a <tractor>.
I know “The Art of Computing” since the 80`s , thanks by the advise, even so.
licas_@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: Reef Fish
- Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- From: clemenr
- Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Prev by Date: Re: Function is >0
- Next by Date: Re: Function is >0
- Previous by thread: Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Next by thread: Re: Testing a Pseudo-Random Generator
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|