Robert A. LaBudde wrote:

>
> Here is a table of the first few values to make the algorithm easier
> to follow:
>
>         HAMMERSLEY SEQUENCE FOR RADIX 2
>
> Index   Binary  Reflection              Decimal Die Roll
> Count                                   100
> Average                         3.4
> Std Dev                         1.71
>
> 1       00000001        10000000        0.50000 4
> 2       00000010        01000000        0.25000 2
> 3       00000011        11000000        0.75000 5
> 4       00000100        00100000        0.12500 1
> 5       00000101        10100000        0.62500 4
> 6       00000110        01100000        0.37500 3
> 7       00000111        11100000        0.87500 6
> 8       00001000        00010000        0.06250 1
> 9       00001001        10010000        0.56250 4
> 10      00001010        01010000        0.31250 2
> 11      00001011        11010000        0.81250 5
> 12      00001100        00110000        0.18750 2
> 13      00001101        10110000        0.68750 5
> 14      00001110        01110000        0.43750 3
> 15      00001111        11110000        0.93750 6
> 16      00010000        00001000        0.03125 1
> 17      00010001        10001000        0.53125 4
> 18      00010010        01001000        0.28125 2
> 19      00010011        11001000        0.78125 5
> 20      00010100        00101000        0.15625 1

The distribution may look good, but the sequence doesn't look 'very'
random to me.  As far as I understand the algorithm: the result is
alternating between a digit in group 1..3 and a digit in group 4..6. For
example a 6 is always followed by a 1,2 or 3, never by 4,5 or another 6.
 Is this 'good enough'? Not for a good casino game, I think.

Regards, Rob.

--
Rob Hamerling, Vianen, NL phone +31-347-322822
homepage: http://www.robh.nl/

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu