>    Why not select their lower bits?

Or in other words, select

  Random mod table_size

Note that even this may affect your randomness of the max range of the
random number is not a multipiler of your table size.

For example, if your random number is in the range 0 to 15 and your table is
0 to 14 than the value '0' is more likly than let's say 7.

Tal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Mike Singer
> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:14 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Large random numbers
>
>
> Jinx wrote:
> .
> .
> > Picking
> > random numbers for a small table takes longer, because so many
> > Timer1L values are rejected for being too big for the high byte, and
> > it can take a second or two to complete the full number but as long
> > as it's as close to random as possible it's not too important. If the
> > table size was set to 30,000d (7530h) for example then it would take
> > a short time to find an acceptable high byte (00 - 75) but longer to
> > find numbers less than 0x31 if the high byte is 0x75
> .
> .
>    Hi, Jinx!
>
>    You should prove that rejecting some values, you don't
> hurt randomness.
>    Why do you reject them at all?
>    Why not select their lower bits?
>
>    Mike.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
> ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.