= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Tyrrell_McAllister comments on Worse Than Random - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (99)
That's an "improvement" that's unlikely to happen before universal heat death.
Improving an algorithm by adding randomness is simple in many cases - while improving it further may be totally impractical and ineffectual.
I think that this is a better de-randomization: Presumably there is some set S of numbers that have been observed to pass Diehard tests reliably. The de-randomized algorithm is simply to read off S. Computationally, this is cheaper than generating your own random set and reading it off.
ETA: And, if I'm not mistaken, if S has already been observed to pass Diehard tests reliably, then it is even more likely to pass them in the future than is a newly generated random set.