Re: CCL:random number generators

 Previously, Dave Young wrote:
 > 	I am starting to do Quantum Monte Carlo calculations and
 > I am interested in the performance of random number generators.
 >
 > 	There have been a number of tests developed, the most trusted
 > seem to be those in "Seminumerical Algorithms" by Knuth.  And
 there
 > are a number of supplemental random number generators, such as the
 > ran3 generator in "Numerical Recipies".  It has also been
 demonstrated
 >
 > 	My question is - Do the random number generators built into
 > the current generation of compilers pass statistical tests?
 >
 A simple answer is "No".
 I think this topic is a permanent flame-war in sci.math.stat.
 The current publications of interest are
 "Monte Carlo Simulations: Hidden errors from "Good" Random number
 generators"
 Phys. Rev. Letters 69(23), pp 3382 1992
   Specifically this article says ".. a specific algorithm must be tested
   together with the random number generator being used REGARDLESS of the
   tests which the generator has passed."
 "Latest Development in Random Numbers", CERN Computer Newsletter 213,
 July-Sept.
 pp 5-7, 1993.
 and
 "Ultra, The greatest random number generator that ever was or ever will
 be", by
 Arif Zaman (arif |-at-| stat.fsu.edu) and George Marsaglia (geo |-at-|
 stat.fsu.edu), 1992.
 My painful experience with compiler random number generators is that
 one is far better off using a known and tested generator.
 --
 Sincerely, Thomas Pierce - THPierce |-at-| RohmHaas.Com  -  Computational
 Chemist
 "These opinions are those of the writer and not the Rohm and Haas
 Company."