0
-
-
Replying to @terrible_coder
Is it though? Every manual makes a point to note that 0 is inclusive. I assume someone did the analysis. But, I've never seen an estimate of the probability.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @terrible_coder
Er, not estimate -- analytical result.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist
Depends on how you define "returning 0.0" since equality isn't incredibly well-defined on floats.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @terrible_coder
IIRC, it is for 0.0 given IEEE 754 floats.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @terrible_coder
0.0 is one of 16777216 (2^24) possible significand states for a single precision IEEE 754 number; 2^237 for octuple precision (max). The algorithms Elijah mentioned restrict that further, but for single precision, if you're doing a lot of rng stuff, not impossible.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @thedansimonson @terrible_coder
But is there any guarantee the something like MT19937 needs to visit that state?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @generativist @terrible_coder
I'm not familiar enough with the twister to know, and I suspect it depends on the specific implementation, of which there seems to be many
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @thedansimonson @terrible_coder
Yea, I think it does. This is a blog post for another time, I think.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @generativist @terrible_coder
Tag me in it when you post it! I wanna know
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Will do.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.