KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
in [Math]
|
From: Uno on 5 Aug 2010 17:07 robin wrote: > "James Waldby" <no(a)no.no> wrote in message news:i39iqp$sg7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > | On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:41:15 +1000, robin wrote: > | > "Uno" <merrilljensen> wrote: > | [snip code] > | >> If you were to comment out the PL/I command line that compiled this, > | >> what would it be? > | > > | > ??? > | > | Does that mean you don't understand Uno's question, > | or don't know the answer? > > It means that the question makes no sense. > > Does this make sense? I'll restate the question, and I'm sure you'll get my drift. When I compile off a command line, I keep the command lines I used as the final comments in that file. So there might, in fortran, exist implicit real pi = 4.0 * atan(1.0) print *, pi endprogram !here it comes, the goocher: ! gfortran pi1.f90 -o out 1) What did you name this pli thing? 2) What command compiled it? 3) How does one comment in pli? 4) How does one acquire a pli facilty on ubuntu? -- Uno
From: Uno on 5 Aug 2010 17:13 orz wrote: > On Jul 30, 10:14 pm, Gib Bogle <g.bo...(a)auckland.no.spam.ac.nz> wrote: >> orz wrote: >>> Yes. Sorry. I was reading backwards from your last post and ended up >>> missing the point. And getting confused on the sign. >>> Anyway, the issue is that Georges code uses a different definition of >>> sign than your implementation of it - his code is actually correct if >>> sign(x) is 1 if x is positive and 0 if x is negative. Since your sign >>> function returns -1 on negative, using it produces the wrong >>> results. >>> side note: The incorrect results produced that way at a appear to have >>> vaguely similar statistical properties as the original C codes output, >>> passing and failing the same tests that the original C code does in my >>> brief tests. >> Interesting, who would have guessed that there is a language in which sign(-1) = 0. > > I have to correct myself for swapping 0 and 1 *again*. And I'm not > even dyslexic, so far as I know. > > His code assumed sign returned 1 on negative, and 0 otherwise, as in a > simple unsigned 31 bit rightshift. The exact opposite of what I > said. Zero: the other one. Zero: One-Lite. Telling left from right is sometimes the hardest thing. -- Uno
From: robin on 6 Aug 2010 06:11 "Uno" <merrilljensen(a)q.com> wrote in message news:8c0nh6FkkvU1(a)mid.individual.net... | I'll restate the question, and I'm sure you'll get my drift. When I | compile off a command line, I keep the command lines I used as the final | comments in that file. So there might, in fortran, exist | | implicit real | pi = 4.0 * atan(1.0) | print *, pi | endprogram | | !here it comes, the goocher: | | ! gfortran pi1.f90 -o out | | 1) What did you name this pli thing? RNG-2010.PLI | 2) What command compiled it? PL/I RNG-2010 | 3) How does one comment in pli? /* Stuff */
From: mecej4 on 9 Aug 2010 10:52 Uno wrote: > robin wrote: >> "James Waldby" <no(a)no.no> wrote in message >> news:i39iqp$sg7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> | On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:41:15 +1000, robin wrote: >> | > "Uno" <merrilljensen> wrote: >> | [snip code] >> | >> If you were to comment out the PL/I command line that compiled this, >> | >> what would it be? >> | > >> | > ??? >> | >> | Does that mean you don't understand Uno's question, >> | or don't know the answer? >> >> It means that the question makes no sense. >> >> > Does this make sense? > > I'll restate the question, and I'm sure you'll get my drift. When I > compile off a command line, I keep the command lines I used as the final > comments in that file. So there might, in fortran, exist > > implicit real > pi = 4.0 * atan(1.0) > print *, pi > endprogram > > !here it comes, the goocher: > > ! gfortran pi1.f90 -o out > > 1) What did you name this pli thing? > > 2) What command compiled it? > > 3) How does one comment in pli? > > 4) How does one acquire a pli facilty on ubuntu? Those kinds of basic questions are mostly covered by the PL/I FAQ, which is posted quite regularly in this newsgroup. As far as I am aware, there is no production quality native PL/I compiler available for Linux. There is VisualAge PL/I for Windows, which IBM makes available through its Scholars Program to those who qualify or which may be purchased (at significant cost) as part of the Rational Developer for System Z product. -- mecej4
From: Peter Flass on 9 Aug 2010 20:47
mecej4 wrote: > > As far as I am aware, there is no production quality native PL/I compiler > available for Linux. I wish everyone would stop repeating this. Not that I want to plug a competing product, but Micro Focus Open PL/I runs on Linux. (http://www.microfocus.com/products/studio/open-pli.aspx) What's your definition of "production quality?" I haven't tried this, but it at least sounds good. Of course Micro Focus invites this anonymity, since their marketing is probably second only to IBM's in its badness: no pricing, no demo, no advertising or promotion, etc. If you want something to try *now*, look at Iron Spring (http://www.iron-spring.com/) - possibly not yet "production quality" but getting there. If it doesn't do what you want, just ask. Selling commercial software for Linux presents some challenges. |