Would $0 instantiation variables be of use here? Or would that make each random generator one value away from the one beside it?
d. Charles Henry wrote: > In a way~, it's not so straightforward. Let's say the random > generators are identical and seeded by another identical random > generator with no further modifications. Then, all the other random > generators are correlated--using the same sequence, but with slightly > different starting points within that sequence. > > so, you need to have a map of the range of random onto itself, which > is different from the random sequence mapping. That way, you actually > obtain seed values which are spaced far apart in the sequence. > > This could be actually pretty simple, e.g. > seed=rand_max - input_from_1st_rand > > Chuck > > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:39 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Martin Peach wrote: >> >>> Or have a single random generator inside pd that feeds all the random >>> objects. >> yes of course, this would be the most straight forward solution. >> >> >> mfgasdr >> IOhannes >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pd-list@iem.at mailing list >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > -- derek holzer ::: http://www.umatic.nl ::: http://blog.myspace.com/macumbista ---Oblique Strategy # 24: "Bridges -build -burn" _______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list