Re: Shock: rand function is not uniform!

On Tue 19 Feb, Justin Fletcher wrote:
> 
> I think your belief that empirical evidence is proof is
> wrong; which is what I'm stating.

When lightning strikes the same point a thousand times. Even
you might have to admit that, while empirical evidence may
not be able to prove anything for certain, there comes a point
when you have to stop ignoring its overwhelming significance.

When you manage to run the test program the sheer statistical
significance of the results will be obvious to you. So for
the third or fourth time, *please* look at the problem and
take the time to understand it before criticising me.

> James Taylor wrote:
> > 
> > You *still* haven't run the program have you?
> > Please run it, understand it, and only then make such
> > comments, otherwise you run the risk of seeming foolish.
> 
> It didn't work.

Ah, then this clearly needs to be addressed first. Why
didn't it work? What error messages did you get? Did you
give it a large enough wimpslot? Were you running it
from the command line or a taskwindow? etc, etc...

> You began by talking about perl rand function then went off
> to talk about C rand functions and their implication, which
> as I stated made little sense, so I can only assume that you
> where unsure what you meant on other fronts.

It is arrogant to assume that confusion must necessarily be
someone else's when it's just as likely to be your own.

The reason I mentioned C rand functions was because Perl is
written in C and is thus dependent on the C library's rand
function actually working. I now know that the C library in
question is UnixLib and that its rand function is therefore
probably duff. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

> Your statements were making it out as if the results were the
> only factors - they're not; they are indicative of an
> underlying issue which has now been addressed.

What do you mean by "has now been addressed"?
Do you mean to say that you've fixed the UnixLib duff rand?
Sorry if that seems critical, but your comments are unclear.

-- 
James Taylor <[email protected]>
Based in Southam, Cheltenham, UK.
PGP key available ID: 3FBE1BF9
Fingerprint: F19D803624ED6FE8 370045159F66FD02