MarkOverton

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   I have given this question (and my paper) to a PhD who works heavily with probability and has a track-record of accomplishments. Also, I have another idea on empirical verification. So hang on...
2. 2.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   > You cannot fix this error. Your proofs do not apply to such limited set of random permutations. Incorrect. You are misunderstanding what a probability says. Suppose a ball has a 1/3 chance of landing in bin 1 and a 2/3 chance
3. 3.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   I've changed the license to Apache version 2.0. Thanks for suggesting it!
4. 4.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   Suppose you generated two permutations, one using true random numbers and the other using pseudo-random numbers. Now you have two fixed permutations. The cycles in both will obey the probabilities about such cycles, unless the pseudo-ra
5. 5.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   I mention this idea in the paper (which is linked at the top of the website). The problem is that this technique increases register pressure when the generator is inlined, which in turn increases spills, which reduces performance.
6. 6.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   Yes, the output latency is zero clock cycles. The paper contains ILP tables that detail what happens in each clock cycle. The generator computes its next output while the application is running. But you are correct in that the statement (an
7. 7.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   That's why I pointed out that the probability of a too-short cycle or sequence-overlap is no higher than that of randomly selecting one snowflake out of all snowflakes in Earth's history. Also, the paper has a graph and accompanyi
8. 8.▲
   by MarkOverton 7y ago

   I'm easy-going about this. I want anybody to be able to copy and modify the code, but not claim credit for inventing it. - Mark Overton