I personally have not heard of this approach to "extending" random number generators. However, it is possible that this extension is not used because it is unclear whether or not many of the "randomness" properties hold using this extension.
For example, is the resulting sequence "well-distributed"? In the case of the transformed $M=8 sequence, it is. Are consecutive pairs of the resulting sequence well-distributed? In the case of the same sequence, no they are not (for example, two identical consecutive digits is 20% less likely than it should be). In this particular case, this is perhaps expected, because the original sequence didn't have this property. But in general, if we take a sequence that has some "good randomness property", will the transformed sequence have the property too? In short, period length isn't always the only thing to consider.
In reply to Re: the -other- shuffling question
by kaif
in thread the -other- shuffling question
by mstone
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |