Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
11-15-2016, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 11-15-2016 10:35 PM by Dieter.)
Post: #41
 Dieter Senior Member Posts: 2,397 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
(11-15-2016 09:32 PM)Paul Dale Wrote:  You didn't include the $$frac ( 2^{20} x_n )$$ part. The leading bits don't pass the randomness tests but going down the mantissa a bit does.

Sorry, it was not clear to me that R_n is returned and not x_n. Adding the 20-bit shift improves the results very much, if (!) the algorithm runs in a regular binary double precision environment with 53 bit mantissa. On the other hand the method may not be the first choice on a standard 10-digit BCD calculator: here only three digits may remain in the fractional part after the multiplication by 2^20. I tried shifting by 13 bits, i.e. x_n*8192, which yields 2..3 more digits, but here other problems arise.

Dieter
11-15-2016, 10:40 PM
Post: #42
 Paul Dale Senior Member Posts: 1,556 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
For a BCD device, I'd multiply by a power of ten instead.

Pauli
11-15-2016, 10:47 PM
Post: #43
 Paul Dale Senior Member Posts: 1,556 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
(11-15-2016 05:12 PM)Namir Wrote:  I checked the method with Excel VBA and realized that the random calculation noise (generated when you take the fractional part of large numbers) was particular to Matlab!

Might the noise be correct and Excel is doing naughty things in the background?
See e.g. pages 7 & 8 of https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/ARITH_17.pdf

Pauli
11-15-2016, 11:05 PM
Post: #44
 Dieter Senior Member Posts: 2,397 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
(11-15-2016 10:40 PM)Paul Dale Wrote:  For a BCD device, I'd multiply by a power of ten instead.

OK, but 2^20 = 1.048.576 or 1.000.000 does not make much of a difference. ;-)

Dieter
11-15-2016, 11:51 PM
Post: #45
 Paul Dale Senior Member Posts: 1,556 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
It might be possible to reduce the multiplier to $$10^4$$ or $$10^5$$without losing the apparent entropy. The choice of $$2^{20}$$ was fairly arbitrary.

Pauli
11-16-2016, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2016 06:31 PM by Dieter.)
Post: #46
 Dieter Senior Member Posts: 2,397 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
(11-15-2016 11:51 PM)Paul Dale Wrote:  It might be possible to reduce the multiplier to $$10^4$$ or $$10^5$$without losing the apparent entropy. The choice of $$2^{20}$$ was fairly arbitrary.

I tried a multiplier of 1000 which leaves 5 or 6 digits on a 10-digit calculator. Which is not too much since some game programs use the first four digits to get two 2-digit random numbers. #-)

After a few runs with 10 batches of 1000 numbers each I discovered a similar phenomenon like the one you can see in the table at post #39. This time there were several 1000-number-runs where not a single random number appeared between 0,7 and 0,8. The pattern was like this, leading to Chi² = 202,9. While the first three 10.000-number-runs looked fine, all following ones had this pattern, maybe here and there ±1 in the one or other bin, but always the 8th one empty:

Code:
0,0...    117 0,1...    103 0,2...     78 0,3...    143 0,4...    182 0,5...     91 0,6...    117 0,7...      0  (!!!) 0,8...     78 0,9...     91

Very strange. I wonder if it's the RNG, Excel or my coding.
The random numbers were calculated this way, starting with a seed of x0 = 0.546703671.

Code:
    z = Exp(Round(x + x + 1, 9))     x = z - Int(z)     If z < 9.9999999995 Then x = Round(x, 9) Else x = Round(x, 8)     rn = Round(1000 * x - Int(1000 * x), 6)

Any idea what would cause strange results like these?

Dieter
11-16-2016, 06:20 PM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2016 06:40 PM by Dieter.)
Post: #47
 Dieter Senior Member Posts: 2,397 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
(11-16-2016 01:53 PM)Dieter Wrote:  Any idea what would cause strange results like these?

I did another test. This time starting with x0 = 0,45642414. The implementation mentioned above generates the following sequence:

0,350905
0,42875
0,62931
0,93117
0,02565
0,42874
0,643333
...

A sample of 1000 consecutive random numbers showed a period length of 77. The 78th number is 0,350905 again, and the above sequence starts over. In fact the 78th x-value is 0,45642414 again, the original seed. Thus in 1000 numbers every value occured 13 times. OK, except one since 13x77=1001. This exeption is the seed itself, i.e. Rn=0, 42414. And in fact there is not one single Rn in [0,7; 0,8[. In the sorted list of these 1000 random numbers 0,69777 is directly followed by 0,84506.

I have also checked this with an HP41 implementation:

Code:
RCL 00 ST+ X 1 + e^x FRC STO 00 1E3 * FRC

Starting with 0,45642414 in R00 the program yielded exactly the same results, and after 77 numbers the sequence restarted, with 0,45642414 in R00 again.

For the record, here is the complete list of the first 80 Rn:

Code:
 1.  0,350905  2.  0,42875  3.  0,62931  4.  0,93117  5.  0,02565  6.  0,42874  7.  0,643333  8.  0,85718  9.  0,10318 10.  0,65815 11.  0,557927 12.  0,47512 13.  0,092 14.  0,95182 15.  0,41278 16.  0,07307 17.  0,505942 18.  0,303103 19.  0,382599 20.  0,094476 21.  0,436495 22.  0,03523 23.  0,02344 24.  0,285095 25.  0,85653 26.  0,675471 27.  0,37482 28.  0,54911 29.  0,95747 30.  0,57554 31.  0,214103 32.  0,849191 33.  0,309908 34.  0,46272 35.  0,4397 36.  0,12143 37.  0,428283 38.  0,038915 39.  0,116376 40.  0,383202 41.  0,29357 42.  0,25395 43.  0,516251 44.  0,94027 45.  0,63507 46.  0,687494 47.  0,342444 48.  0,06445 49.  0,875943 50.  0,521511 51.  0,24125 52.  0,17458 53.  0,424301 54.  0,141801 55.  0,332297 56.  0,213162 57.  0,144471 58.  0,10338 59.  0,070719 60.  0,872262 61.  0,370813 62.  0,99494 63.  0,482137 64.  0,69777 65.  0,11986 66.  0,960758 67.  0,3351 68.  0,43555 69.  0,69399 70.  0,43742 71.  0,391572 72.  0,84506 73.  0,596742 74.  0,41389 75.  0,913563 76.  0,60827 77.  0,42414 78.  0,350905   ...and back to start 79.  0,42875 80.  0,62931      ...

Hm, hmm, hmmm...

Dieter
11-16-2016, 10:22 PM
Post: #48
 Paul Dale Senior Member Posts: 1,556 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
Working in higher precision, the $$e^{2x+1}$$ generator seems to work okay with a scale factor of $$10^5$$ but no so well with $$10^4$$. However, I've not tried limiting calculations to 10 digits as you are doing.

Pauli
11-29-2016, 05:09 AM (This post was last modified: 12-26-2016 12:38 AM by Namir.)
Post: #49
 Namir Senior Member Posts: 690 Joined: Dec 2013
RE: Information on calculator Random Number Generators from PPC Journal articles
In the previous messages in this thread, the following similar PRNGs were mentioned:

r=frac((pi+r)^3)
r=frac((pi+r)^5)

Their general form is:

r=frac((a+r)^b)

I chose a = pi + cos(k * c2 / pi) and b = 4 + sin(k * c1 / pi)

Where c1=127, c2=113, and k is a counter that is incremented every time we invoke the PRNG function.

I tested 5 runs of 10,000 random numbers. The maximum absolute auto-correlation was less than 0.03. The Chi-Square was in (4, 10.3) range. The mean and sdev of all 50,000 random numbers were 0.500016257 and 0.288179175, respectively.

The above PRNG should be adequate for calculation apps, simulations, and games.

Enjoy!

Namir

PS: You can also use a = pi + sin(k * c2 / pi) and b = 4 +cos(k * c1 / pi) and get similar results.
 « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)