4 ms·
> You can have something that has better randomness, runs several times faster, uses less space and has a much more compact and simple implementation. Could yo
by MauranKilom 6y ago
> You can have something that has better randomness, runs several times faster, uses less space and has a much more compact and simple implementation.
Could you share at least one example of such a generator?
Most of these aspects are trivial to improve on, but having "better randomness" on top is quite the bar.
- ChrisLomont 6y agoThe PCG class of PRNGs are very good, and have a zillion tunable versions to suit every need. https://www.pcg-random.org/index.html https://www.pcg-random.org/index.html
- sobriquet9 6y agoMCG 128 from http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/on-vignas-pcg-critique.html http://www.pcg-random.org/posts/on-vignas-pcg-critique.html or xoshiro256plus from http://prng.di.unimi.it/xoshiro256plus.c http://prng.di.unimi.it/xoshiro256plus.c
- patrec 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister#Alternatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister#Alternatives https://nullprogram.com/blog/2017/09/21/ https://nullprogram.com/blog/2017/09/21/ I don't think better randomness than MT is as high a bar as you make it out to be, both links above also briefly mention statistical shortcomings of MT.