At 03:09 PM 8/13/02 -0700, Brendan wrote: >I see what you mean about high equidistribution. I wrote a program >on my good ol TI-86 to run through this algorithm, and the seperation >between the number with the highest frequency and the number with the >lowest frequency is still only 5 at most with 700 iterations, as near >as I have seen. > >I have only one concern. 1 and 3 seem to get the highest number of >selections on a base of 6. > >I ran the sequence from 0 to 1023, and the results at the end were >encouraging. >1:171 >2:171 >3:170 >4:171 >5:171 >6:169 The theoretical average should be 3.50 and the standard deviation 6/sqrt(12) = sqrt(3) = 1.732. >The average was 3.492 >the standard deviation was (I think) 0.837 > >(I'm still not too clear on standard deviation, but I think that's >accurate.) Your standard deviation is wrong. Compare the distribution you got this way, with what you would expect from simple random sampling. The average number in 1024 tries is 170.7 per number, with an expected range of [144.6,196.7]. Note how much tighter the range was for your numbers: [169,171]. >All of that look about right? > >- --Brendan > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use > >iQA/AwUBPVmDsgVk8xtQuK+BEQKjngCfcdRDJ1eWZe+P6bZMYyLKpDF79E0Ani4t >2KNFqUeKxWbSw1/Xrj0Xs3zA >=1Ags >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >-- >http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! >email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body ================================================================ Robert A. LaBudde, PhD, PAS, Dpl. ACAFS e-mail: ral@lcfltd.com Least Cost Formulations, Ltd. URL: http://lcfltd.com/ 824 Timberlake Drive Tel: 757-467-0954 Virginia Beach, VA 23464-3239 Fax: 757-467-2947 "Vere scire est per causas scire" ================================================================ -- http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us! email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body