If I get a response like "this worked", but it doesn't create an array and I haven't tried to do that...this will fall upon some very deaf ears.

Update: I am probably not the only Monk who wonders what the OP is going to do with this array of numbers? Geez.. this function is not exactly a masterpiece of Computer Science. I have no idea of how this data will be used.

I am probably not the only Monk who wonders what the OP is going to do with this array of numbers?

In addition, I wondered whether someone should point out to the OP that solutions given so far provide pseudorandom (not random) numbers. But I decided (for my own convenience) that such considerations were not relevant to the exercise being undertaken.

Cheers,
Rob

Yes, I also thought that pointing this out wouldn't be helpful to the OP. There are also "better" pseudo random algorithms than the standard rand() function - algorithms that give a more even distribution of numbers and do better on other statistical measures at the expense of more computational effort. I'm sure none of this matters to the OP. Basically given the hints provided, if the OP couldn't come close to my one Perl line, the chance of any significant computation using the results is close to zero.

To get really random numbers, you need a piece of hardware that quantifies some physical random phenomenon. I haven't checked in on the Princeton EGG Project in awhile. I suspect that their hardware is pretty good.

I wondered whether someone should point out to the OP that solutions given so far provide pseudorandom (not random) numbers

... except the solution provided by soonix of course, which produces a guaranteed random number ;-)

TGIF, Rata