From pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca  Tue Feb 22 22:33:26 2000
From: pgilbert@bank-banque-canada.ca (Paul Gilbert)
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:33:26 -0500
Subject: [Rd] reproducing Box-Muller numbers
References: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10002222153130.29615-100000@auk.stats>
Message-ID: <38B30EB5.C9806B6B@bank-banque-canada.ca>

>Users are not expected to set .Random.seed directly, period. set.seed()
>sets one of 2^32 separate seeds: why do you need more?

I've been using the same random numbers since R 0.49, the last time the uniform
RNG was modified. Before that I was using the same numbers since R 0.16. There
was considerable discussion when the change was made in 0.49 and it was agreed
that in future there would be an effort to make the numbers reproducible. I
certainly agree with improvements, but if you mess up reproducibility you are on
a very slippery slope.

My tests set "Wichmann-Hill", and mostly set the seed to c(979,1479,1542), which
I previously
could do with set.seed, but that has changed in 0.99.

>I presume the numbers you want
>to reproduce were not standard R before?

I'm not sure what you mean by standard R before, but I have been using my own
version of Box-Muller so that I can be sure to be able to work around changes in
rnorm. I can still do that but for obvious reasons I would prefer not to post a
library that takes control of that part of R.

Paul Gilbert

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
r-devel mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html
Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe"
(in the "body", not the subject !)  To: r-devel-request@stat.math.ethz.ch
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._


[Rd] reproducing Box-Muller numbers
Paul Gilbert