<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Isaac Dupree <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org">ml@isaac.cedarswampstudios.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Citation/argument for "It is sure to introduce correlations between the forked generators"? Did someone prove that for all possible PRNGs? Or are you just claiming a lack of anyone having proved it to be sound?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, it's necessarily the case that if the children of a split depend only on the state of their parent, their states must be correlated. For them to be uncorrelated, one would have to acquire its state from another source.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Split on StdGen worked fine for me displaying random smoke. The only effect of the random numbers here is how it looks. And it looked fine. Actually I re-implemented that with a linear congruential generator in C for speed. Just saying, *some* uses of random numbers don't need them to have very good properties.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's true, but that's also not an argument in favour of the PRNG being bad :-)</div></div>