Re^2: Boolean math: Fill in the blanks.

Conclusion: ... I see some inconsistent results ... 7 of ( R & R | R & R ) & R evaluates to 5 bits set on average.

If you plug ( R & R | R & R ) & R into the OP code and run it a few times, you'll see that the average does approximate 7:

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e2
7.02

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e2
6.88

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e2
7.06

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e2
7.06

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e2
6.92

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e2
7.08
[download]

And as you increase the number of iterations, the more closely the observations coincide with the theoretical value:

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e5
7.00138

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e5
6.98986

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e5
6.99812

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e5
7.00729

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e6
6.994402

C:\test>booleanBuk -N=1e6
7.002038
[download]

That's how I like my proofs. Tangible :)

Sorry if I have misunderstood your hypothesis.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

Comment on Re^2: Boolean math: Fill in the blanks. Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Boolean math: Fill in the blanks. by repellent (Priest) on Oct 12, 2008 at 16:54 UTC
But plug in `(( R & R ) \| R ) & R & R` into the OP code and it tends towards 5, which was how I was interpreting the expression: `( R & R \| R & R ) & R` My mistake. Perl evaluates `( R & R \| R & R ) & R` as `( (R & R) \| (R & R) ) & R` and that, according to my hypothesis, results in 7 bits set on average.	[reply] [d/l] [select]


Syntactic Confectionery Delight
	PerlMonks