similar to: Question on RNG

Dear all, Recently I am generating large random samples (10M) and any duplicated numbers are not desired. We tried several RNGs in R and found Wichmann-Hill did not produce duplications. The duplication problem is the interesting birthday problem. If there are M possible numbers, randomly draw N numbers from them, the average number of dupilcations D = N(N-1)/2/M. For Knuth-TAOCP and

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. ---559023410-851401618-1218751024=:15885 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE I didn't describe the problem clearly. It's about the number of distinct=20 values. So just

Dear Sir/Madam, I am a beginner in R. Here is my questions. 1. Can you give me one test for randomness (a name and descriptive paragraph is sufficient). 2. I have learned a uniform random number generator [e.g. not the algorithms: i)Wichmann-Hill, ii) Marsaglia-Multicarry, iii) Super-Duper (Marsaglia), iv) Mersenne-Twister, v) TAOCP-1997 (Knuth), or vi) TAOCP-2002 (Knuth)] . Is there any other

This is cross-posted from SO (https://stackoverflow.com/q/47079702/1414455), but I now feel that this needs someone from R-Devel to help understand why this is happening. We are facing a weird situation in our code when using R's [`runif`][1] and setting seed with `set.seed` with the `kind = NULL` option (which resolves, unless I am mistaken, to `kind = "default"`; the default being

Hi All, I have k identical parallel pieces of code running, each using n.rand random numbers.? I would like to use the same RNG (for now), and set the seeds so that I can guarantee that there are no overlaps in the random numbers sampled by the k pieces of code.? Another side goal is to have reproducibility of my results.? In?the past I have used C with SPRNG for this task, but I'm hoping

Martin, Thanks for the helpful reply. Alas I had forgotten that (implied) unfavorable comparisons of *nix systems with Windows systems would likely draw irate (but always substantive) responses on the R-devel list -- poor phrasing on my part. :) Regardless, let me try to address some of the concerns related to the construction of the MRE itself and try to see if we can clean away the shrubbery

Bill, I have clarified this on SO, and I will copy that clarification in here: "Sure, we tested them on other 8-digit numbers as well & we could not replicate. However, these are honest-to-goodness numbers generated by a non-adversarial system that has no conception of these numbers being used for anything other than a unique key for an entity -- these are not a specially constructed

Bill, Appreciate the point that both you and Serguei are making, but the sequence in question is not a selected or filtered set. These are values as observed in a sequence from a mechanism described below. The probabilities required to generate this exact sequence in the wild seem staggering to me. T On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 11:27 PM, William Dunlap <wdunlap at tibco.com> wrote: >

On 30 August 2016 at 18:29, Duncan Murdoch wrote: | I don't see evidence of a bug. There have been several versions of the | MT; we may be using a different version than you are. Ours is the | 1999/10/28 version; the web page you cite uses one from 2002. | | Perhaps the newer version fixes some problems, and then it would be | worth considering a change. But changing the default RNG

On 04/11/2017 10:20 PM, Daniel Nordlund wrote: > Tirthankar, > > "random number generators" do not produce random numbers. Any given > generator produces a fixed sequence of numbers that appear to meet > various tests of randomness. By picking a seed you enter that sequence > in a particular place and subsequent numbers in the sequence appear to > be unrelated.

This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ---559023410-1141662977-1014960253=:3119 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-ID:

Gabe As mentioned on Twitter, I think the following behavior should be fixed as part of the upcoming changes: R.version.string ## [1] "R Under development (unstable) (2019-02-25 r76160)" .Machine$double.digits ## [1] 53 set.seed(123) RNGkind() ## [1] "Mersenne-Twister" "Inversion"??????? "Rejection" length(table(runif(1e6))) ## [1] 999863 I don't

Dear All, The editor of a journal to which I had submitted a publication asked whether R has a "tested random number generator." My paper included Monte Carlo simulations generating random normal and random chi-square values. help(rnorm) lists Wichura, M. J. (1988) Algorithm AS 241: The Percentage Points of the Normal Distribution. Applied Statistics, 37, 477-484. as a

Dear all, I have been trying to understand what runif() is telling me. I am generating lots of numbers (billions and billions (wow, I''ve dreamed about saying that for many years... :-) ), for a distribution that has the following quantile function: 1 / (2 * sqrt(1 - p)) (that is, the distribution has a lower cutoff) As you can imagine, this has rather heavy upper tail. I was

Another other generator is subject to the same problem with the same probabilitiy. > Filter(function(s){set.seed(s, kind="Knuth-TAOCP-2002");runif(1,17,26)>25.99}, 1:10000) [1] 280 415 826 1372 2224 2544 3270 3594 3809 4116 4236 5018 5692 7043 7212 7364 7747 9256 9491 9568 9886 Bill Dunlap TIBCO Software wdunlap tibco.com On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 10:31 AM, Tirthankar

>>>>> Tirthankar Chakravarty <tirthankar.lists at gmail.com> >>>>> on Fri, 3 Nov 2017 13:19:12 +0530 writes: > This is cross-posted from SO > (https://stackoverflow.com/q/47079702/1414455), but I now > feel that this needs someone from R-Devel to help > understand why this is happening. Why R-devel -- R-help would have been

Whomever, I recently sent the "bug report" below toR-core at r-project.org and have just been asked to instead submit it to you. Although I am basically not an R user, I have installed version 3.3.1 and am also the author of a statistics program written in Visual Basic that contains a component which correctly implements the Mersenne Twister (MT) algorithm. I believe that it is

Tirthankar, "random number generators" do not produce random numbers. Any given generator produces a fixed sequence of numbers that appear to meet various tests of randomness. By picking a seed you enter that sequence in a particular place and subsequent numbers in the sequence appear to be unrelated. There are no guarantees that if YOU pick a SET of seeds they won't produce

Ralf I don't doubt this is expected with the current implementation, I doubt the implementation is desirable. Suggesting to turn this to pbirthday(1e6, classes = 2^53) ## [1] 5.550956e-05 (which is still non-zero, but much less likely to cause confusion.) Best regards Kirill On 26.02.19 10:18, Ralf Stubner wrote: > Kirill, > > I think some level of collision is actually

The random numbers in a stream initialized with one seed should have about the desired distribution. You don't win by changing the seed all the time. Your seeds caused the first numbers of a bunch of streams to be about the same, but the second and subsequent entries in each stream do look uniformly distributed. You didn't say what your 'upstream process' was, but it is easy to