Daniel Bebber wrote:
> Further info for those interested in Random Numbers:-
>
> I'm not surprised that Excel failed the random number test- it isn't
> designed to do complex statistics, and is in general a pretty basic
> piece of
> software, good for data entry and calculating tax returns. Truly
> random
> numbers are impossible to create using a digital computer, since
> computers
> use linear algorithms. The most ingenious "true" random number
> generator
> I've come across uses the blobs of molten wax in a lava lamp (see
> http://lavarand.sgi.com/). I don't believe it is truly random since it
>
> relies on a deterministic chaotic system- very hard to predict, but
> still
> deterministic. Other examples use atmospheric noise
> (http://www.random.org/)
> and radioactive decay (http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/). Radioactive
> decay
> is the only thing I'm aware of which is truly random.
> It all depends on how random one needs ones numbers.
Or, as my favorite statisticians tell me, "There is no such thing as
random." But I was disappointed to learn how far wide of the mark Excel
is for this function.
Jay
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: (414) 634-9100
FAX: (414) 681-1133
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm). What do you want to improve today?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|