Return to Question

From Comments to this answer to Regularity in the "Rusty Towel of Mutual understanding"

From Comments to this answer to Regularity in the "Rusty Towel of Mutual understanding"

I wrote this code to show how wrong I was about Random Number Generators,

that isn't really a percentage of chance though, the chance that the number returned is under 10 and/or under 50 is not 10% or 50%. you actually will have a higher percentage of numbers in the middle of the range than at the extremes. and I wish I could reference something here, but I don't remember why/how I know that. – Malachi 3 hours ago

@Malachi - you are wrong with that statement. – rolfl? 3 hours ago

I don't have access to running Java Code, but I could create a random number generator with C# and see what happens.... – Malachi 3 hours ago

@Malachi and you'd be testing the effect of using C#'s RNG with java calls. Java's Random.nextInt(int n), returns 0-(n-1), pseudorandomly distributed. – Pimgd 2 hours ago

I agree it would be totally different, but aren't both RNG's based on a C function or a C++ function? wouldn't they be fairly similar? – Malachi 2 hours ago

Is there anything that I can do to make it more apparent how wrong that I am about the distribution of random numbers?

How many numbers do you require?
5000
1: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
2: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
3: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
4: 39 --> Percentage: 0.7800 %
5: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
6: 61 --> Percentage: 1.2200 %
7: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
8: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
9: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
10: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
11: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
12: 58 --> Percentage: 1.1600 %
13: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
14: 36 --> Percentage: 0.7200 %
15: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
16: 42 --> Percentage: 0.8400 %
17: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
18: 47 --> Percentage: 0.9400 %
19: 64 --> Percentage: 1.2800 %
20: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
21: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
22: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
23: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
24: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
25: 38 --> Percentage: 0.7600 %
26: 60 --> Percentage: 1.2000 %
27: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
28: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
29: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
30: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
31: 58 --> Percentage: 1.1600 %
32: 53 --> Percentage: 1.0600 %
33: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
34: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
35: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
36: 58 --> Percentage: 1.1600 %
37: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
38: 59 --> Percentage: 1.1800 %
39: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
40: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
41: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
42: 41 --> Percentage: 0.8200 %
43: 41 --> Percentage: 0.8200 %
44: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
45: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
46: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
47: 56 --> Percentage: 1.1200 %
48: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
49: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
50: 65 --> Percentage: 1.3000 %
51: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
52: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
53: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
54: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
55: 53 --> Percentage: 1.0600 %
56: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
57: 54 --> Percentage: 1.0800 %
58: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
59: 59 --> Percentage: 1.1800 %
60: 47 --> Percentage: 0.9400 %
61: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
62: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
63: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
64: 59 --> Percentage: 1.1800 %
65: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
66: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
67: 60 --> Percentage: 1.2000 %
68: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
69: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
70: 61 --> Percentage: 1.2200 %
71: 48 --> Percentage: 0.9600 %
72: 38 --> Percentage: 0.7600 %
73: 60 --> Percentage: 1.2000 %
74: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
75: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
76: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
77: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
78: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
79: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
80: 48 --> Percentage: 0.9600 %
81: 54 --> Percentage: 1.0800 %
82: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
83: 56 --> Percentage: 1.1200 %
84: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
85: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
86: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
87: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
88: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
89: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
90: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
91: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
92: 48 --> Percentage: 0.9600 %
93: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
94: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
95: 53 --> Percentage: 1.0600 %
96: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
97: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
98: 47 --> Percentage: 0.9400 %
99: 39 --> Percentage: 0.7800 %
100: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %

Anything I do to make this code cleaner?

I wrote this code to show how wrong I was about Random Number Generators.

_{that isn't really a percentage of chance though, the chance that the number returned is under 10 and/or under 50 is not 10% or 50%. you actually will have a higher percentage of numbers in the middle of the range than at the extremes. and I wish I could reference something here, but I don't remember why/how I know that. – Malachi 3 hours ago}

---

_{@Malachi - you are wrong with that statement. – rolfl♦ 3 hours ago}

---

_{I don't have access to running Java Code, but I could create a random number generator with C# and see what happens.... – Malachi 3 hours ago}

---

_{@Malachi and you'd be testing the effect of using C#'s RNG with java calls. Java's Random.nextInt(int n), returns 0-(n-1), pseudorandomly distributed. – Pimgd 2 hours ago}

---

_{I agree it would be totally different, but aren't both RNG's based on a C function or a C++ function? wouldn't they be fairly similar? – Malachi 2 hours ago}

Is there anything that I can do to make it more apparent how wrong that I am about the distribution of random numbers? Anything I can do to make this code cleaner?

How many numbers do you require?
5000
1: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
2: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
3: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
4: 39 --> Percentage: 0.7800 %
5: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
6: 61 --> Percentage: 1.2200 %
7: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
8: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
9: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
10: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
11: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
12: 58 --> Percentage: 1.1600 %
13: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
14: 36 --> Percentage: 0.7200 %
15: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
16: 42 --> Percentage: 0.8400 %
17: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
18: 47 --> Percentage: 0.9400 %
19: 64 --> Percentage: 1.2800 %
20: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
21: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
22: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
23: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
24: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
25: 38 --> Percentage: 0.7600 %
26: 60 --> Percentage: 1.2000 %
27: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
28: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
29: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
30: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
31: 58 --> Percentage: 1.1600 %
32: 53 --> Percentage: 1.0600 %
33: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
34: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
35: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
36: 58 --> Percentage: 1.1600 %
37: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
38: 59 --> Percentage: 1.1800 %
39: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
40: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
41: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
42: 41 --> Percentage: 0.8200 %
43: 41 --> Percentage: 0.8200 %
44: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
45: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
46: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
47: 56 --> Percentage: 1.1200 %
48: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
49: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
50: 65 --> Percentage: 1.3000 %
51: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
52: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
53: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
54: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
55: 53 --> Percentage: 1.0600 %
56: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
57: 54 --> Percentage: 1.0800 %
58: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
59: 59 --> Percentage: 1.1800 %
60: 47 --> Percentage: 0.9400 %
61: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
62: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
63: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
64: 59 --> Percentage: 1.1800 %
65: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
66: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
67: 60 --> Percentage: 1.2000 %
68: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
69: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
70: 61 --> Percentage: 1.2200 %
71: 48 --> Percentage: 0.9600 %
72: 38 --> Percentage: 0.7600 %
73: 60 --> Percentage: 1.2000 %
74: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
75: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
76: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
77: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
78: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
79: 52 --> Percentage: 1.0400 %
80: 48 --> Percentage: 0.9600 %
81: 54 --> Percentage: 1.0800 %
82: 45 --> Percentage: 0.9000 %
83: 56 --> Percentage: 1.1200 %
84: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
85: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
86: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
87: 55 --> Percentage: 1.1000 %
88: 49 --> Percentage: 0.9800 %
89: 57 --> Percentage: 1.1400 %
90: 51 --> Percentage: 1.0200 %
91: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %
92: 48 --> Percentage: 0.9600 %
93: 50 --> Percentage: 1.0000 %
94: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
95: 53 --> Percentage: 1.0600 %
96: 44 --> Percentage: 0.8800 %
97: 43 --> Percentage: 0.8600 %
98: 47 --> Percentage: 0.9400 %
99: 39 --> Percentage: 0.7800 %
100: 46 --> Percentage: 0.9200 %

that isn't really a percentage of chance though, the chance that the number returned is under 10 and/or under 50 is not 10% or 50%. you actually will have a higher percentage of numbers in the middle of the range than at the extremes. and I wish I could reference something here, but I don't remember why/how I know that. – Malachi 3 hours ago

@Malachi - you are wrong with that statement. – rolfl? 3 hours ago

I don't have access to running Java Code, but I could create a random number generator with C# and see what happens.... – Malachi 3 hours ago

@Malachi and you'd be testing the effect of using C#'s RNG with java calls. Java's Random.nextInt(int n), returns 0-(n-1), pseudorandomly distributed. – Pimgd 2 hours ago I agree it would be totally different, but aren't both RNG's based on a C function or a C++ function? wouldn't they be fairly similar? – Malachi 2 hours ago

that isn't really a percentage of chance though, the chance that the number returned is under 10 and/or under 50 is not 10% or 50%. you actually will have a higher percentage of numbers in the middle of the range than at the extremes. and I wish I could reference something here, but I don't remember why/how I know that. – Malachi 3 hours ago

@Malachi - you are wrong with that statement. – rolfl? 3 hours ago

I don't have access to running Java Code, but I could create a random number generator with C# and see what happens.... – Malachi 3 hours ago

@Malachi and you'd be testing the effect of using C#'s RNG with java calls. Java's Random.nextInt(int n), returns 0-(n-1), pseudorandomly distributed. – Pimgd 2 hours ago

I agree it would be totally different, but aren't both RNG's based on a C function or a C++ function? wouldn't they be fairly similar? – Malachi 2 hours ago