On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 00:17 -0400, Martin Peach wrote:
> On 2010-08-10 04:32, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Also an uncertain execution order in the log divide part needs one of
> those [tff]s.
HAHAHA, I would have never dreamed that once someone would be saying
that to Frank.
(Frank, please get me
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 00:17 -0400, Martin Peach wrote:
> > On 2010-08-10 04:32, Frank Barknecht wrote:
>
> > Also an uncertain execution order in the log divide part needs one of
> > those [tff]s.
>
> HAHAHA, I would have never dre
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 10:01 +0200, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Roman Haefeli wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 00:17 -0400, Martin Peach wrote:
> > > On 2010-08-10 04:32, Frank Barknecht wrote:
> >
> > > Also an uncertain execution order in the log divide part
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:17:14AM -0400, Martin Peach wrote:
> Yes it is the reason for the valleys. Your random is on [-0.5,0.5]
> instead of [-1,1].
Ah, of course, how silly.
> Also an uncertain execution order in the log divide part needs one
> of those [tff]s.
Oops, I overlooked this
On 2010-08-10 04:32, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hi,
I made two generators for Gaussian white noise, one using DSP, the other
as message based version. Both use the same algorithm, but the histogram
analysis of both shows a defect with the message version: The histogram
has a visible "valley" around
Hi,
I made two generators for Gaussian white noise, one using DSP, the other
as message based version. Both use the same algorithm, but the histogram
analysis of both shows a defect with the message version: The histogram
has a visible "valley" around the central expectation value, so it
doesn't l
