3 ms·
Apparently people didn't like what I said. But I stand by it. If you are using the built-in random number generator in your simulations you are doing something
by cabinpark 12y ago
Apparently people didn't like what I said. But I stand by it. If you are using the built-in random number generator in your simulations you are doing something VERY stupid.
The built-in random() is not a good source of random numbers for scientific purposes. I've heard too many stories about how people don't think about the random number generator, only to have it bite them in the ass.
- scott_s 12y agoYou're probably getting downvotes for how you said it, and that you provided no explanation for what you said. A phrasing that would not clash with HN culture: "If you are a computational scientist who is using random() for any part of your simulation, you are making an enormous mistake."
- EpicEng 12y agoIt's because you labeled these people as idiots. How about telling the truth and admitting that they may just be uninformed and making a mistake? One can be intelligent and, at the same time, make mistakes due to lack of experience, lack of training, lack of <whatever>.
- raverbashing 12y ago1 - You don't know what the purpose of the simulation is and what is a good source for every specific case. 2 - You're assuming people don't test their generators and just accept blindly whatever result it gives and/or don't compare results of known cases 3 - You say "If you do X you're an idiot" and provide exactly ZERO alternatives to it. Doesn't look very credible
- ronaldx 12y ago> The built-in random() is not a good source of random numbers for scientific purposes. Unless you are going to be more specific about when it's not good, this is not generally true. Scientific purposes often includes Monte Carlo methods, and random() in Python uses a Mersenne Twister - a perfectly good match. Be careful about calling people idiots.