|
|
|
|
|
by MiceWithYaffle
3234 days ago
|
|
I think Vigna's claim is that if you ignore the PractRand tests that fail, it passes. (Really!) O'Neill has instructions on how to test with PractRand and with TestU01 on her blog (http://www.pcg-random.org/blog/). I had a go with TestU01 on Vigna's generators, and when you test the low 32 bits reversed (for 64-bit PRNGs, you have to test the high 32, the low 32, both forwards and reversed), I found that all Vigna's generators fail. Given the PractRand results it makes sense, I guess, but I had read that Vigna's generators were supposed to pass TestU01. Does anyone else wants to have a go at testing so I can know if I screwed up somehow? |
|
The code does explain exactly what the issue is, i.e. that the last bit isn't random:
But I'm tempted to agree this isn't a desirable property for a generic RNG.How many users of JavaScript know about this property? (it's the default RNG for most browser engines) Or does it not matter because they return 53-bit floats?