On 22/02/13 12:54, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
On 22/02/2013 11:02, Bert Gunter wrote:
AFAICS, these are statistics, not R, issues, and are completely off
topic here. You should post on a statistics list, such as
stats.stackexchange.com, instead.
Except for the unattributed vague comment about 64
On 22/02/2013 11:02, Bert Gunter wrote:
AFAICS, these are statistics, not R, issues, and are completely off
topic here. You should post on a statistics list, such as
stats.stackexchange.com, instead.
Except for the unattributed vague comment about 64-bit (sic) machines.
The RNG is the same (an
AFAICS, these are statistics, not R, issues, and are completely off
topic here. You should post on a statistics list, such as
stats.stackexchange.com, instead.
Cheers,
Bert
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini
wrote:
> Dear List,
>
> Recently I got the comment that the im
Dear List,
Recently I got the comment that the implementation of the random number
generator used by default in R (Mersenne-Twister) could not be "safe"
for 64-bits machines, so I decided to put the question here because I do
not have expertise in that topic, and because this question could be
