proc roll {} {
set seed [expr [clock clicks] + [pid] + [clock seconds]]
set seed [expr $seed - [expr $seed * 2]]
#set seed [expr sqrt($seed)]
expr (srand ($seed))
set seed 0
set number [expr (rand() * 6)]
return [set number [expr round($number)]]
}
set ::a 0
set ::1 0
set ::2 0
set ::3 0
set ::4 0
set ::5 0
set ::6 0
proc statistics {} {
set a 0
while {$a != 100000} {
set roll [roll]
while {$roll == 0} {
set roll [roll]
}
foreach value {1 2 3 4 5 6} {
if {$value == $roll} {
incr ::$value
}
}
incr a
}
set a 0
puts ">1= $::1"
puts ">2= $::2"
puts ">3= $::3"
puts ">4= $::4"
puts ">5= $::5"
puts ">6= $::6"
set ::1 0
set ::2 0
set ::3 0
set ::4 0
set ::5 0
set ::6 0
}This snipped of code should produce random numbers in the range of 1-6, but if you apply a large enough sample, you notice that the output becomes rather predictable. The generator tends to favor 3 and 4 in this instance, and favors 1 rather than 6. This might have something to do with the way round() handles its math, but given the source code above, theres a rather large degree of predictability going on. If I were a gambler Id have my money on 3 everytime.
100000 >1= 17471 >2= 6785 >3= 25872 >4= 24633 >5= 19663 >6= 5576 100000 >1= 17226 >2= 7011 >3= 25862 >4= 25001 >5= 19008 >6= 5892 100000 >1= 17361 >2= 7183 >3= 24947 >4= 24568 >5= 19996 >6= 5945
originally created by Davou