Do named pipes have disk I/O ?? [Unix Programming]

Prev: Learn about proxy sites and how to use them to open blocked sites unlimited downloads from RapidShare and megaupload and increase the speed of the Internet with new sites for free
Next: Why can't I catch a SIGBUS on my Mac (when strlen(NULL) is used)?

From: Nicolas George on 6 Apr 2010 09:14

"Peter Olcott" wrote in message
<nLudneWj6ZvjtibWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
> The random number generator was not as random as I thought.

The flaw is not is the random number generator, it is in your algorithm.

That has been explained several times. Did you even read the answers that
you got?

From: Peter Olcott on 6 Apr 2010 09:53

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> wrote in
message news:4bbb33ce$0$8281$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr...
> "Peter Olcott" wrote in message
> <nLudneWj6ZvjtibWnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
>> The random number generator was not as random as I
>> thought.
>
> The flaw is not is the random number generator, it is in
> your algorithm.
>
> That has been explained several times. Did you even read
> the answers that
> you got?

The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
reference.

From: Nicolas George on 6 Apr 2010 10:01

"Peter Olcott" wrote in message
<XIKdnW0Q_5JPoSbWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
> The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
> generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
> widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
> reference.

No. For, hopefully, the last time, the flaw is the way you use the random
numbers, that will lead to a cycle that is _always_ much smaller than what
you expect.

I have explained it in great detail in a recent messages, other have
confirmed it. If you refuse our help, I do not see why I should spend more
time answering your messages.

From: Peter Olcott on 6 Apr 2010 10:36

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> wrote in
message news:4bbb3e9b$0$30282$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr...
> "Peter Olcott" wrote in message
> <XIKdnW0Q_5JPoSbWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
>> The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
>> generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
>> widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
>> reference.
>
> No. For, hopefully, the last time, the flaw is the way you
> use the random
> numbers, that will lead to a cycle that is _always_ much
> smaller than what
> you expect.
>
> I have explained it in great detail in a recent messages,
> other have
> confirmed it. If you refuse our help, I do not see why I
> should spend more
> time answering your messages.

I don't really need to talk about this thread anymore. I was
done with it more than a week ago.

From: Peter Olcott on 6 Apr 2010 10:39

"Nicolas George" <nicolas$george(a)salle-s.org> wrote in
message news:4bbb3e9b$0$30282$426a74cc(a)news.free.fr...
> "Peter Olcott" wrote in message
> <XIKdnW0Q_5JPoSbWnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>:
>> The flaw is that the random number generator sometimes
>> generates sequences of numbers that are not sufficiently
>> widely dispersed enough to thwart spatial locality of
>> reference.
>
> No. For, hopefully, the last time, the flaw is the way you
> use the random
> numbers, that will lead to a cycle that is _always_ much
> smaller than what
> you expect.

Also it was not always much smaller than I expected. Testing
confirmed that it was only much smaller than I expected
about 30% of the time.

>
> I have explained it in great detail in a recent messages,
> other have
> confirmed it. If you refuse our help, I do not see why I
> should spend more
> time answering your messages.