note
BrowserUk
<blockquote><i>It's maybe slower than fudging, but I have more faith in it.</i></blockquote>
<p>Having called it "fudging", there is actually very sound math sitting behind it. I'm not competent to explain the math, but I can explain my testing. I've run all permutations of M & N from 1 through 10,000; and 500 million random selections of M & N = 1 .. 2**32 without seeing a single error.
<p>Given that in the original form, there was a 1 in 15 error rate, the odds that if there were any errors with the "fudged" algorithm, that I have not detected 1 of them after 600 million trials, are so vanishingly small as to be ... well, very, very unlikely.
<div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-171588">
<hr />
<font size=1 >
<div>Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.</div>
<div>"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". </div>
<div>In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.</div>
</font>
</div></div>
892828
893494