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. | [reply] |
| [reply]
[d/l] |
| [reply] |
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 | [reply] |
except the solution provided by soonix of course, which produces a guaranteed random number ;-)
Heh ... yeah, I missed that reply.
Though I do think it rather naive that the "flip of a coin" or "the roll of a fair die" should be deemed as unconditionally producing a random result.
These events produce random results only if the person flipping the coin or rolling the die is completely unskilled in influencing the outcome ... yet this caveat is seldom mentioned ;-)
Cheers,
Rob
| [reply] |