Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 734 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2009 00:57:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2009 00:57:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 208 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2009 00:57:49 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 99933 invoked by uid 500); 27 Oct 2009 00:57:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 99923 invoked by uid 99); 27 Oct 2009 00:57:48 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:57:48 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of ted.dunning@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.51 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.51] (HELO mail-pw0-f51.google.com) (209.85.160.51) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:57:46 +0000 Received: by pwi19 with SMTP id 19so3544079pwi.10 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=0RxM4yIr291oUJPTGv5NhOlNL9bqNtyPS1Sj8PHNa9I=; b=Ns6DJ58hyp7zsU1FnmTo6uVjj8oW8f090Wto0GJqcv+gNdldP9Uf+2Qw9QAQQNsL/m z2vuUeYinZft03Gt5Nuf9JyQPCNHBYsUyxcVW50T/huep95hDhbJux/o9L7DyupO/Ah3 arDFqfan3AO7o5eBVXBNau7ZxWyGdjtxnyLwE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; b=r99NaHKd7eiDLu12lLMxBkoZyPQLPynCfhGwH4QmdWjykiQTG+O6DOzemLQXQlucl4 jwJGEKy0Gk+GYT44E0NSni8B0Y547p49ogu44m8EEO0EPSGaOpQoGkbp+dUSAEg6OSs3 5ecbdnkprQ+9gDuatfRyHEmz5lVMddY/pAyRk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.55.34 with SMTP id d34mr7446570waa.225.1256605046141; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:57:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3796c6d50910261733v520c6f9bxef9e4e14ffc8f86@mail.gmail.com> References: <3796c6d50910261509n70c5f326yd5ab9eef2b74c92c@mail.gmail.com> <4AE635AF.2050408@gmail.com> <4AE639E4.2080702@gmail.com> <3796c6d50910261711y279cfe05x992c716db723c91b@mail.gmail.com> <3796c6d50910261733v520c6f9bxef9e4e14ffc8f86@mail.gmail.com> From: Ted Dunning Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:57:06 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [math] Generate random data using the Inverse CDF Method? To: Commons Developers List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016369204c765f1ce0476e029cf --0016369204c765f1ce0476e029cf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think that the implementations with specialized generators should just over-ride the generic generator and do the specialized operation. I have seen cases where _developers_ think there should be multiple implementations of random number generators, but I don't think I have ever seen a case where _users_ think that there should be such. The only reasonable exception I can think of is in test cases. There I can imagine that it would be possible to need to say "what *if* I really did get this sequence of numbers". That can generally be handled by mocking and doesn't motivate me to want to make the user experience more complex than it needs to be. As the best case in point, does R provide more than one way to generate exponential deviates? (no) Does SPSS? (no) Does SAS? (don't think so) Matlab? (nope) Why should we? On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Mikkel Meyer Andersen wrote: > > If we were to put a generator in the distributions (for supporting the > specialised generators), should this method then just be parameterised > by a RandomGenerator? Or what would be a proper approach? > > --0016369204c765f1ce0476e029cf--