Re: [Numpy-discussion] Right behavior

[Tim C. <tc...@op...>]

Johan Fredrik =D8hman wrote:
>=20
> The first numbers in each of your three runs are 7.98493051529 ,
> 7.98525762558 and 7.98623776436.
> They look like different numbers to me.
>=20
> First, thanks for your answer Time.
> I do agree, they are different.  But I wouldn't call it random.  I didn=
't expect
> that the small difference in the initial seed would affect the first nu=
mber with so little.
> Usually the seed numbers I have experienced other places have much more
> dramatic effect on the numbers,  if you see what I mean...

OK, you need to use Konrad Hinsen's excellent RNG module which comes
with Numeric Python:
#################################
# Python Virtual clock
import RNG

dist =3D RNG.NormalDistribution(10, 2)
rng =3D RNG.CreateGenerator(0, dist)
for i in range(1000000,10000000,1000000):
	print "Clock at time:" , i/1000000, ":", rng.ranf()
##################################

The above code gives 8.46183655136,  7.29889782477 and 5.58243682462 as
the first values in three successive runs on my system.

Hope this helps,

Tim C

>=20
> If you want the difference
> between initial values to be greater, you need to make the
> difference in your seeds greater. For example, if I run your code now, =
I
> get 8.29225027561, 8.29484963417 and 8.29744851589, but setting the see=
d
> to (1,2) gives an initial value of 5.69397783279. Remember, these are
> only pseudorandom numbers.
>=20
> Yes, they are pseudorandom and that is OK.  What I just want is some mo=
re
> initial difference between the runs without setting the seed number man=
ually.
> But know I know this is not a flaw in the RNG, but "its the way it is s=
upposed to be"
>=20
> Thanks
>=20
> --
> Johan Fredrik Ohman
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Numpy-discussion mailing list
> Num...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion