Re: Balancing randomness

This WebDNA talk-list message is from

2000


It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 27979
interpreted = N
texte = On 2/23/00 4:26 pm, Christer Olsson so noted...>I belive your first results are based on a bad formula: > >[math]pick=[format .0f][math]pick=(([random]/100)*4)+1[/math][/format][/math] > >The part [random]/100)*4)+1 does not do what I think you expect it to do. > >If [random] is from 1-12 (12 figures) your formula will result in 1 >If [random] is from 13-37 (25 figures) your formula will result in 2 >If [random] is from 38-61 (24 figures) your formula will result in 3 >If [random] is from 62-87 (26 figures) your formula will result in 4 >If [random] is from 88-100 (13 figures) your formula will result in 5Excellent call. I had been using [format .0f] as an integer function, which is wrong since [format] is rounding up, not just lopping off the decimal (resulting in the quantities of the end numbers being skewed -- 1 would hit 13 times, 5 would hit 12, the rest at 25).By changing the formula to use floor( )...[math]pick=floor(([random]/100)*5)+1[/math] On my loop of 1000, I get a *far* better distribution:1 = 190 (19%) 2 = 202 (20.2%) 3 = 199 (19.9%) 4 = 207 (20.7%) 5 = 202 (20.2%)Whoo hoo!Now to look through a few websites and find where else I've used my crappy random routine : )P.S. [random] on Mac WC 3.0.5b11 gives numbers from 0-99 -- should I be concerned?Rob Marquardt Designer/Resident Wirehead Toast Design800 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis MN 55401 612.330.9863 v 612.321.9424 f www.toastdesign.com ------------------------------------------------------------- Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server. To end your Mail problems go to .This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:

    
  1. Re: Balancing randomness (Rob Marquardt 2000)
  2. Re: Balancing randomness (Peter Ostry 2000)
  3. Re: SOLUTION.... Re: Balancing randomness (Rob Marquardt 2000)
  4. Re: Balancing randomness (Christer Olsson 2000)
  5. Re: SOLUTION.... Re: Balancing randomness (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  6. Re: SOLUTION.... Re: Balancing randomness (Rob Marquardt 2000)
  7. SOLUTION.... Re: Balancing randomness (Joseph D'Andrea 2000)
  8. Re[2]: Balancing randomness (Kenneth Grome 2000)
  9. Re: Balancing randomness (Joseph D'Andrea 2000)
  10. Re: Balancing randomness (John Butler 2000)
  11. Re[2]: Balancing randomness (Joseph D'Andrea 2000)
  12. Re: Balancing randomness (Miguel Castaneda 2000)
  13. Re: Balancing randomness (Rob Marquardt 2000)
  14. Re: Balancing randomness (Joseph D'Andrea 2000)
  15. Re[2]: Balancing randomness (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
  16. Re[2]: Balancing randomness (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
  17. Re: Balancing randomness (Peter Ostry 2000)
  18. Re: Balancing randomness (Rob Marquardt 2000)
  19. Re: Balancing randomness (Joseph D'Andrea 2000)
  20. Re: Balancing randomness (jpeacock@univpress.com 2000)
  21. Balancing randomness (Rob Marquardt 2000)
On 2/23/00 4:26 pm, Christer Olsson so noted...>I belive your first results are based on a bad formula: > >[math]pick=[format .0f][math]pick=(([random]/100)*4)+1[/math][/format][/math] > >The part [random]/100)*4)+1 does not do what I think you expect it to do. > >If [random] is from 1-12 (12 figures) your formula will result in 1 >If [random] is from 13-37 (25 figures) your formula will result in 2 >If [random] is from 38-61 (24 figures) your formula will result in 3 >If [random] is from 62-87 (26 figures) your formula will result in 4 >If [random] is from 88-100 (13 figures) your formula will result in 5Excellent call. I had been using [format .0f] as an integer function, which is wrong since [format] is rounding up, not just lopping off the decimal (resulting in the quantities of the end numbers being skewed -- 1 would hit 13 times, 5 would hit 12, the rest at 25).By changing the formula to use floor( )...[math]pick=floor(([random]/100)*5)+1[/math] On my loop of 1000, I get a *far* better distribution:1 = 190 (19%) 2 = 202 (20.2%) 3 = 199 (19.9%) 4 = 207 (20.7%) 5 = 202 (20.2%)Whoo hoo!Now to look through a few websites and find where else I've used my crappy random routine : )P.S. [random] on Mac WC 3.0.5b11 gives numbers from 0-99 -- should I be concerned?Rob Marquardt Designer/Resident Wirehead Toast Design800 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis MN 55401 612.330.9863 v 612.321.9424 f www.toastdesign.com ------------------------------------------------------------- Brought to you by CommuniGate Pro - The Buzz Word Compliant Messaging Server. To end your Mail problems go to .This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Rob Marquardt

DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!

Top Articles:

Talk List

The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...

Related Readings:

I'm having trouble using [url][interpret][math] together in lookup (1997) Multiple catalog databases and showcart (1997) Time comparison question (1998) NT vs Mac (1997) default value from Lookup (was Grant, please help me) (1997) The word TYPE in search contexts and fields (1998) Web Catalog vs. ICAT (1997) Checkboxes (1998) [WebDNA] OT survey .... (2012) Email check problems (1999) Absolute path (2003) Searching for foreign chars (2004) [searchString] (1997) [WebDNA] Simple Date Format Conversion (2008) Trouble Searching (1999) SUBMIT buttons not working.... (2000) [WebDNA] multi [sendmail] inside [search] (2012) So [OT] it's not even funny (2003) Merging databases (1997) [ShowNext] feature in 2.0 (1997)