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:

corrupted jpgs (2003) Maybe off topic but how to charge (1997) WebCatalog2 Feature Feedback (1996) What folder??? (1999) New Problem (1997) [Sum] function? (1997) Multiple fields on 1 input (1997) Caching pages...again (2001) [Announce]: Web server security and password protection (1997) WebCat odd log behavior (1998) More than one db with the same namn (was: WC2f3) (1997) Bug? (1997) Tax and ShipCost Problem (1997) [Shownext] [whynot] (2000) [OT] Pushing Pages (2003) time and welcome (1999) WebCatalog NT (1996) [OT] RSS Feeds (2007) Re1000001: Setting up shop (1997) Large databases in WebCat (1997)