The Mersenne twister should be able to split better than most. but I'm not sure how efficient it is.<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/14/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Isaac Dupree</b> <<a href="mailto:isaacdupree@charter.net">
isaacdupree@charter.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Don Stewart wrote:<br>> I've seen similar results switching to the SIMD mersenne twister C
<br>> implementation for randoms:<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/SFMT/index.html">http://www.math.sci.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/~m-mat/MT/SFMT/index.html</a><br>><br>> If there's interest, I can package up the bindings for hackage.
<br><br>looks nice... at least for those of us who have non-old computer<br>CPUs.... Is there a decent way to implement 'split'? A way that doesn't<br>take too long to run, and produces fairly independent generators?
<br><br>Isaac<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br><a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe">
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br></blockquote></div><br>