Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc
Date	2013-08-27 15:03 -0400
Organization	Self
Message-ID	<521CF805.5070104@verizon.net> (permalink)
References	(8 earlier) <b7vkdgFtg3mU1@mid.individual.net> <87y57nxlt8.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> <b840ndFrco3U1@mid.individual.net> <521CD378.6050607@verizon.net> <b849cqFta7sU1@mid.individual.net>

Show all headers | View raw

On 08/27/2013 02:27 PM, osmium wrote:
> "James Kuyper" wrote:
> 
>> On 08/27/2013 11:59 AM, osmium wrote:
>> ...
>>> them.  I do not consider "The method used was flawed..." to be a 
>>> critique.
>>> I think that is called "bitching".
>>
>> What do you consider inappropriate about complaining about the use of
>> flawed methods? I could understand being annoyed if the complaint failed
>> to identify the claimed flaws, or if there's no available alternative
>> that's free of those flaws, but you didn't mention anything like that.
> 
> I was responding to this in Carmody's post
> 
>> Firstly, the method they used to generate those numbers is flawed.
> 
> There is no substance there.  It is simply an assertion  by a Most High 
> Authority that the thing is flawed.

That's odd. The message I saw containing that sentence followed it up
with one mentioning a specific flaw: "I think it's at least 50 bits
short of the maximum possible entropy in such a stream.", and citation
of a place to look for more information about that flaw: "(See
comp.compression from about 5-10 years ago.)". Were those parts missing
from the message you received?

I have to agree with Eric - 50 bits seems a very small complaint for
such a large data set. But the fact that a specific flaw was identified
means that there is some substance to the complaint, it is not "simply
an assertion". The fact that discussion of the issue was cited means
he's not trying to convince you on the sole basis of his "Most High
Authority" - he's not only allowing you to see what the arguments for
each side were, he's actively encouraging you to do so.

I didn't get any hits using "million random digits", but when I told
Google Groups to look for messages containing million, random, and
digits separately, it found 38 hits during the specified time period in
the specified newsgroup. Many of those hits contained the phrase
"million random digits" - so the fact that the first search failed is
another example of Google flakiness. Did you look at those threads? I
haven't bothered, but this issue seems to be of interest to you, even if
only in the negative sense.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-20 20:52 -0700
  Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-23 11:42 +0300
    Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-23 07:09 -0400
      Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-23 17:55 +0300
        Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-23 12:29 -0400
    Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-23 08:32 -0700
      Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2013-08-23 09:32 -0700
        Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-23 17:47 +0000
        Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-24 13:24 +0300
          Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-24 15:27 -0700
        Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-08-25 19:05 -0500
          Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-25 19:54 -0700
          Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 17:14 +0300
            [OT] Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-08-27 10:52 -0400
              Re: [OT] Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 18:43 +0300
                Re: [OT] Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-08-27 15:08 -0400
            Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-08-27 10:59 -0500
              Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 12:27 -0400
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-08-27 13:27 -0500
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 15:03 -0400
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-08-27 19:02 -0500
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-27 22:14 -0400
                OT:Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-08-28 07:36 -0500
                Re: OT:Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 11:14 -0400
                Re: OT:Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-08-28 10:59 -0500
                Re: OT:Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 12:46 -0400
                Re: OT:Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-28 21:13 +0300
                Re: OT:Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2013-08-28 20:20 -0400
                Re: OT:Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-28 18:07 +0100
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-28 21:10 +0300
              Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-28 21:08 +0300
            Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-08-27 12:21 -0700
            Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2013-08-28 04:07 +0100
    Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-24 13:38 -0700
      Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-25 12:50 +0300
        Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-26 12:54 -0700
          Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Chris DH <cdhorz@gmail.com> - 2013-08-26 17:05 -0700
            Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-08-27 17:17 +0300
              Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Chris DH <cdhorz@gmail.com> - 2013-08-27 08:33 -0700
            Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-27 14:02 -0700
              Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Chris DH <cdhorz@gmail.com> - 2013-08-27 18:51 -0700
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-29 09:34 -0700
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Chris DH <cdhorz@gmail.com> - 2013-08-29 17:06 -0700
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-08-31 16:52 -0700
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Chris DH <cdhorz@gmail.com> - 2013-09-01 13:26 -0700
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2013-09-01 14:08 -0700
                Re: Random 64 bit number in stdc Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-02 12:41 -0700

csiph-web