Timeline for Misconceptions about random numbers in a range
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 5, 2014 at 21:18 | comment | added | Glen_b | The key is making a phrase like "nearly as many small as large numbers" precise enough that we're not talking about different things. But if you want something that decays exponentially (which won't be approximately uniform in the logs - even if we're only looking at values not too close to 0 - that's quite a different thing), you might consider something like perhaps a logistic distribution. | |
| Aug 5, 2014 at 16:22 | comment | added | Jens |
Ok I think I have misused the word uniform. As I said I never really learned about statistics in detail. What I wanted to say was kind of a uniform distribution (don't nail me on these ;-)) between large and small numbers. I'm thinking that I could generate random numbers from a distribution function that decayes exponentially with increasing x by means of the inverse function method. Has this any chance of success? The distribution does not need to be statistically perfect, as long as there are nearly as many small as large numbers, all's well.
|
|
| Aug 5, 2014 at 2:56 | history | edited | Glen_b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2014 at 2:46 | history | edited | Glen_b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 403 characters in body
|
| Aug 5, 2014 at 2:39 | history | answered | Glen_b | CC BY-SA 3.0 |