From: Dann Corbit on
In article <i39iqp$sg7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, no(a)no.no says...
>
> 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?
>
> In case you don't understand the question, it appears
> to be: "What command is used to compile the code?"

It will depend on the operating system.
Probably JCL along the lines of:
// EXEC PL1LFCLG,REGION.PL1L=256K
From: Peter Flass on
Dann Corbit wrote:
> In article <i39iqp$sg7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, no(a)no.no says...
>> 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?
>>
>> In case you don't understand the question, it appears
>> to be: "What command is used to compile the code?"
>
> It will depend on the operating system.
> Probably JCL along the lines of:
> // EXEC PL1LFCLG,REGION.PL1L=256K

or "plic -C" <filename>
From: sturlamolden on
On 3 Aug, 06:37, Dann Corbit <dcor...(a)connx.com> wrote:

> Mersenne Twister 19937 speed, single (Hz): 1.63278e+008
> Mersenne Twister 19937 speed, array (Hz): 1.3697e+008
> KISS 4691 speed, single (Hz):              1.86338e+008
> KISS 4691 speed, array (Hz):              1.87675e+008

Those numbers are in 100 million samples per second (10^8), so you
have the same order of magnitude I reported. The array version of KISS
is inlined (by macro expansion).

These numbers are likely dependent on compiler and hardware.

In you case, KISS4691 is always faster than MT19937. That is what I
expected to see on my laptop as well, but did not. The speed
difference is not very substantial, though, less than a factor of 2.

I am more concerned about numerical quality. Which one should we use
based on that?


Sturla








From: Uno on
Peter Flass wrote:
> Dann Corbit wrote:
>> In article <i39iqp$sg7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, no(a)no.no says...
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> In case you don't understand the question, it appears
>>> to be: "What command is used to compile the code?"
>>
>> It will depend on the operating system.
>> Probably JCL along the lines of:
>> // EXEC PL1LFCLG,REGION.PL1L=256K
>
> or "plic -C" <filename>

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 caquire a pli facilty on ubuntu?

Thanks for your comment,
and holy balls did I get healthy today,
--
Uno


From: orz on
On Aug 3, 7:59 pm, sturlamolden <sturlamol...(a)yahoo.no> wrote:
> On 3 Aug, 06:37, Dann Corbit <dcor...(a)connx.com> wrote:
>
> > Mersenne Twister 19937 speed, single (Hz): 1.63278e+008
> > Mersenne Twister 19937 speed, array (Hz): 1.3697e+008
> > KISS 4691 speed, single (Hz):              1.86338e+008
> > KISS 4691 speed, array (Hz):              1.87675e+008
>
> Those numbers are in 100 million samples per second (10^8), so you
> have the same order of magnitude I reported. The array version of KISS
> is inlined (by macro expansion).
>
> These numbers are likely dependent on compiler and hardware.
>
> In you case, KISS4691 is always faster than MT19937. That is what I
> expected to see on my laptop as well, but did not. The speed
> difference is not very substantial, though, less than a factor of 2.
>
> I am more concerned about numerical quality. Which one should we use
> based on that?
>
> Sturla

MT19937 fails only a few relatively obscure empirical tests. There's
a widespread belief that it's a good RNG and its few failed tests have
little real world consequence. Reduced strength versions of MT19937
have a strong tendency to fail additional tests.

KISS4691 fails no single-seed empirical tests, but it does fail some
empirical tests for correlation between different seeds. Reduced
strength versions tend to do better than reduced strength versions of
MT19937, but not by much.

If you want to go all out for quality over speed, the standard method
is to simply encrypt the output of some RNG with AES or some
comparable algorithm. That's much much slower than MT19937 or
KISS4691, but pretty much perfect quality. Or you could xor the
output of KISS4691 and MT19937.

If you're willing to go with unknown-shortest-cycle-length RNGs then
there are other options, many of which do perfectly on all empirical
tests, and some of those also offer other advantages (such as being
substantially faster than either KISS4691 or MT19937, or offering some
degree of cryptographic security, or passing all empirical tests even
in drastically reduced strength versions). But the famous people in
RNG theory generally seem to think that unknown-shortest-cycle-length
RNGs should not be trusted.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: solutions book
Next: real kind declaration