views:

1090

answers:

10

Possible Duplicates:
How to generate a random number in C?
implementation of rand()
Generating random terrain in Blender3D

I need high quality random numbers in C, but I have no idea what to really do. I need to be able to get numbers from 1-100. Any help or maybe point me to where I can find help.

+2  A: 

You can try something like this:

main()
{
  srand(time(0));

  for(int i=0;i<1000;++i)
    printf("%f ", ((float)rand())/RAND_MAX*99+1);

  return 0;
}

It's as uniform a distribution as the standard rand() can give.

Blindy
I don't think this "appears random up to 100 million runs". For example on Windows, RAND_MAX is 32767. So, once this code is fixed not to sometimes output 101, the values 2, 3, 5, 6... are roughly 0.3% more common than the values 1, 4, 7... I think that in 100M samples that bias should be pretty obvious, and that's even assuming rand() is indistinguishable from random over so many samples. Which it almost certainly isn't, although I can't produce a distinguishing test off the cuff.
Steve Jessop
As I said, it's as random as rand() can be. There are other rng's out there (like the Mersenne twister) which have better "randomness". And are you sure about the fact that evens having a _slightly_ higher probability matters? I'm dividing it all down to a [0,1] interval and multiplying it back up to [1,100].
Blindy
I'm not sure of anything ;-) But in a comment the OP says it should be indistinguishable from random to 100M samples. If this is true, it follows that a 0.3% bias matters. rand() can return 32768 distinct values, and we want to map then onto 100 outputs. So no matter what the source of randomness, 68 outputs are going to be 0.3% more common than the other 32, unless you take the standard precaution of "re-rolling" on a result from `(RAND_MAX - RAND_MAX % 100)` to `RAND_MAX` inclusive.
Steve Jessop
Sorry, that's the precaution when you're using a modulus. It's not so straightforward when doing a rescale.
Steve Jessop
A rescale to float or double brings the quirks of floating point representation into play. You can get weird aliasing at the edges of the "bins" when you scale up.
Nosredna
It doesn't really matter whether you rescale using float, double, or just a lookup table. You can take the modulus, or any other trick you like. If you have 32768 inputs and 100 outputs, then it is impossible to assign equal numbers of inputs to each output. Hence if the input is uniformly distributed, then the output is not. You either need to discard some inputs and pick again, or carry over a remainder from one pick to the next.
Steve Jessop
Absolutely. Agree. Just pointing out that people often think a conversion to float will save them. But floats aren't continuous. In fact, they are harder to understand than ints, being logarithmic.
Nosredna
Oh right, I see. Just making sure nobody reads what you wrote and thinks that *avoiding* a float using a modulus will save them, either ;-)
Steve Jessop
I did that old "do the modulus and loop until valid" trick in a few games. I always had this ticklish feeling that some poor kid somewhere is still waiting for his loop to end with a number in range. :-)
Nosredna
There are more probable reasons that his PC would stall indefinitely. Insert obligatory Windows joke here.
Steve Jessop
Heh. This was probably before Windows.
Nosredna
+3  A: 

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RandomNumber.html

This article explains the basics to creating your own random number generator that will outperform the standard C library function if you find it lacking in distribution. It produces a better spread and hence a more random number.

This is critical if you hope to produce something that can not be reverse engineered, like for poker sites.

Exactly what I needed. Thank you.
akway
There are so many good, well debugged PRNGs out there that this is pointless for using. It's for learning from.
dmckee
Be *very* careful when rolling your own RNG, it's a very easy thing to get wrong and a very hard thing to show that it's wrong.
Kitsune
Yea, **DO NOT DO THIS**. People that are much better at this than you or I have done so. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1046714/what-is-a-good-random-number-generator-for-a-game/1046735#1046735
GMan
+2  A: 

This is the simplest method of producing uniformly distributed random numbers in C:

Step 1. Be sure to include the standard library header to get the necessary function prototypes

#include <stdlib.h>

Step 2. Seed the random number generator using srand(). The seed determines where the random numbers start. The sequence of random numbers will always be exactly the same for a given seed. This allows you to have random, yet reproducible results. If you don't need it to be reproducible, a good thing to seed with is the current time, so that the random sequence will be different on each run.

srand(time(NULL));

(be sure to include time.h if you do this). Also, only seed the generator once per program run unless you are generating a huge number (millions or billions) of random numbers. Seeding frequently makes the sequence less random.

Step 3. Get your random number.

rand()

This function returns a random number between 0 and RAND_MAX, which is a macro that is defined as a rather large integer.

Step 4. Get your random number into the range you want. The general formula for doing so is this:

int random_number = rand() % range + min;

Where range is how many (consecutive) numbers you want to choose from, and min is the smallest of these. So to generate a number between 1 and 100, range is 100 and min is 1:

int random_number = rand() % 100 + 1;

Some people object to this formula because it uses the low-order bits of the number given by rand(), and in older implementations of software pseudo-random number generators these were often less random than the high order bits, but on any modern system this method should be perfectly fine.

Tyler McHenry
This is a bad way of doing it since if favours numbers near the lower end of the scale. If RAND_MAX is something20, then all numbers from 0-20 have an increased chance of getting chosen. It is a slight favouring since RAND_MAX is a very large number, but exists nonetheless.
Rontologist
::shrugs:: For application where 'rand()' is acceptable, the bias from the modulus is trivial. If need be, you can always write a wrapper to clip the offending throws and try again.
dmckee
-1: Using % with rand is very bad. Generate 10,000 random numbers in [1, 100], and you'll see a pretty clear bias. (Consider the case where RAND_MAX = 100, where you'd be twice as likely to roll a 1 as any other number.)
ojrac
+2  A: 

The standard C library has rand which will probably be sufficient, unless you have a need for a prng with a particular statistical distribution..

Jeff Leonard
+7  A: 

By "fair distribution", I assume you mean that you're not generally satisfied by rand(). In this case, you should probably use OS-specific methods that produce cryptographically secure random numbers - /dev/random or /dev/urandom (depending on your needs) on Unix, and CryptGenRandom or RtlGetRandom on Win32. On Win32 specifically, if you're using VS2005 or later, you may just use rand_s.

Pavel Minaev
+1 for using well-known libraries someone else created. There's no better way to use cryptographically secure anything.
ojrac
Agree on the need for a great library written by people who spend a lot of time thinking about the problem and testing it. But I'm always interested in whether the gain from employing one of these won't be negated by calling it improperly.
Nosredna
I'd imagine that it's very probable that if you improperly called the library, you'd be at least as likely to improperly implement it yourself, if not more so.
Kitsune
Yeah, but at least if you wrote it yourself, you'd know for sure that it was screwed up. :-)
Nosredna
+1  A: 

The other posts have good advice. If you really want to dive into the guts of random number generation, take a look at Numerical Recipes in C. Start with Chapter 7.

Pete
+1  A: 

As an high-quality random number generator, please do not use rand(), or not-Quality-Assured code. It is extremely easy to generate random number incorrectly (check Knuth's funny story in "The art of Computer Programming: Seminumerical Algorithms"). The easiest way to proceed is maybe to use the generators in GNU's scientific library. It installs with one click on *nux, and there are several ports of the GSL to Windows. I've used it. It is easy to call and works well.

gappy
A: 

I found some information on the rijndael cypher. http://www.efgh.com/software/rijndael.htm

mikeyickey
+1  A: 

If you really need lottery-quality random numbers, I don't think you want a digital algorithm at all.

You want an actual physical process. See Random.org. Are you willing to pay?

Beware programmatic random number generators if you really need random numbers. As we've seen in the answers so far, it's not only hard to write a good random(), it's hard to figure out how to use the output from it correctly, whether by modulo or by scaling. Even code that people see as "obvious" often turns out to be subtly incorrect.

Taking the ints into floats or doubles only brings in all the quirks of floating point numbers (such as their ability to represent more numbers close to zero than close to one).


What are your requirements? Will your numbers need to be certified? Or do you just want really good random numbers? What tests will you employ to see if your random generator is "good?"

Nosredna
On a macro level I want even distribution, each number coming up about 1% of the time. But on a micro level, I want a high volatility, where any section of the 100+ million random numbers appears completely random.
akway
There are metrics to measure that stuff, but realize that humans are notoriously bad at recognizing randomness, so when you say "appear," do you mean you care more about the appearance of randomness rather than it having been generated in a truly random way? In other words, true random numbers are "streakier" than people expect. Can you live with the true streakiness or would you rather it "look" random to an observer?
Nosredna
Have you looked through the tools listed at Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomness_tests
Nosredna
+2  A: 
Jason
Ad nauseam.....
harto
i couldn't believe that this hadn't been posted yet. i felt obliged to do so :)
Jason
What were the odds?
Nosredna
man why you hatin on me? :)
Jason
OK, OK. I'll turn off the hate factory.
Nosredna