KISS4691, a potentially top-ranked RNG.
in [Fortran]
|
Prev: solutions book
Next: real kind declaration
From: orz on 4 Aug 2010 01:18 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.
From: robin on 4 Aug 2010 03:56 "James Waldby" <no(a)no.no> wrote in message news:i39iqp$sg7$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... | On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 20:41:15 +1000, robin wrote: | > "Uno" <merrilljensen> wrote: | [snip code] | >> If you were to comment out the PL/I command line that compiled this, | >> what would it be? | > | > ??? | | Does that mean you don't understand Uno's question, | or don't know the answer? It means that the question makes no sense.
From: robin on 4 Aug 2010 04:31 "Dann Corbit" <dcorbit(a)connx.com> wrote in message news:MPG.26c1f325a9d5e75f989725(a)news.eternal-september.org... | It will depend on the operating system. | Probably JCL along the lines of: | // EXEC PL1LFCLG,REGION.PL1L=256K or PLI <filename> on the PC for various compilers.
From: Uno on 5 Aug 2010 17:07 robin wrote: > "James Waldby" <no(a)no.no> wrote in message news:i39iqp$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 |