in reply to Re: Re: Pi calculator in thread Pi calculator
Running for 10,000,000 twice I got 3.1405 the first run, and 3.1424 the second. (for an average of 3.1415) It's quite likely your rand() isn't perfect. (neither is mine 10,000,000 runs should give me a digit or two more accuracy).
Anyway, here is my favorite approximation for pi, mainly because it only uses the number 2. Even though two is normally a computer friendly number, this algorithm isn't, because it also uses sqrt's. With my perl, 14 iterations is gives the maximum accuracy: 3.14159265480759
#!/usr/bin/perl w
use strict;
print "Enter how many iterations:\n";
chomp(my $i = <>);
my $x = $i  1;
my $y = sqrt(2);
do { $y = sqrt(2 + $y) while ($x);
$y = sqrt(2  $y);
} if $x;
my $z = $y * (2 ** $i);
print "Pi is close to: $z\n";
So, while not the best, but I have some strange affinity to it. :)
Ciao,
Gryn
p.s. Sorry for the cryptic code for a quick decrypt its: (2**n)*sqrt(2sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2+sqrt(2))))) with the number of 2's inside the sqrt equaling n.
Re: Accuracy of Random Pi
by Fingo (Monk) on Feb 16, 2001 at 07:47 UTC

#!/usr/bin/perl
# This is a quick program to calculate pi using the Monte Carlo method
+.
# I recomend inputting a value for $cycles greater that 1000.
# I am working on a detailed explanation of how and why this works.
# I will add it as soon as I'm done.
use strict;
open(PI, ">>pi.dat")  die "pi.dat";
my ($i, $j, $yespi, $pi) = 1;
my $cycles = 1;
srand;
while ($j <= 100000) {
$cycles = $j;
while ($i <= $cycles) {
my ($x, $y, $cdnt) = 1;
$x = rand;
$y = rand;
$cdnt = $x**2 + $y**2;
if ($cdnt <= 1) {
++$yespi;
}
$i=$i + 10;
$pi = ($yespi / ($cycles / 10)) * 4; # since I add 10 every time.
print PI "$cycles $pi\n";
}
$j = $j + 10;
}
close(PI)  die "pi.dat";
Here is the modified script I was talking about. If you look at pi.dat it starts getting inacurate at one point. I will try using one of the ways to genereate seeds that are slightly more random than plain srand.
Note: you need to make a file pi.dat for the script to run.  [reply] [d/l] 

I'm not sure if setting srand would really help the situation. In order for the Monte Carlo method to be most effective the random numbers produced must be the most evenly spread out. In fact, you can be more accurate without random numbers and instead going through all four corners, then their midpoints, and their midpoints' midpoints, e.g. :
. . . . .
> . . . > etc.
. . . . .
However, if you would like to use random numbers you need one of two types of random numbers. You either need true evenbias random numbers (pseudorandom can work but often don't :) ). Or you can use a particular kind of random numbers that are designed not to repeat and are garunteed to be spread evenly and more and more closely together (very similar to the systematic approach above).
Two examples are Hamilton and Sobol sequences. If you use them, you get a 1/N convergence, instead of a 1/N^2 (which you get for uniform numbers since there is nothing that keeps them from clumping up). I was going to give below "Numerical Recipe's in C"'s version of AntonovSaleev's variant on Sobol's sequence. However it's simply too long. Also, I have to wake up for work tomorrow, and the first version I typed in (converting it to Perl from C) didn't work just right. Oh well.
Good luck, Hamilton sequences are much easier to do.
Ciao,
Gryn  [reply] [d/l] 

Nope, letting perl set srand is good enough. And you are
right about Monte Carlo needing a purer random base than
a pseudorandom generator. Most Monte Carlo's use scads of
randoms per cycle and you loop the psuedo random in 2**31
calls on most systems and 2**15 on some.
Look to CPAN and you will find some of what you need.
First off, if you are going to write your own "random"
sequence generator you my find PDL handy.
If you want someone else to do the work on random numbers
try Math::Random or Math::TrulyRandom
but I would recommend you find an OS specific random source
like Linux's /dev/random and /dev/urandom
#!/usr/bin/perl w
use strict;
#use Linux; ## I wish. =) (yeah yeah, $^O, etc etc)
open UR, "</dev/urandom" or die "Oh man, your system sucks, $!";
my $pages= shift()+0  1;
die "Give me a number greater than 0 or nothing, bub.\n" unless $pages
+>0;
while ($pages>0) {
my $buf;
read UR, $buf, 512 or die "Ouch that shouldn't happen, $!";
for (0..31) {
print vec($buf,$_*4,32), "\t",
vec($buf,$_*4+1,32), "\t",
vec($buf,$_*4+2,32), "\t",
vec($buf,$_*4+3,32), "\n";
}
}

$you = new YOU;
honk() if $you>love(perl)  [reply] [d/l] 



A trick I have mentioned before and may again.
If you need a large supply of random looking data, one of
the best approaches is to grab a large file produced out
of dynamic data (/dev/mem is often a good bet, there are
plenty of choices though), compress it, and then encrypt
it with a good algorithm. Samples from the resulting file
are for all intents and purposes, random.
 [reply] 




I did a search on CPAN for a quasirandom number generation module, but sadly could not find one. I will try the systematic dot approch that you mentioned, but this has interested me very much. Can you please tell me how I could go about writing a quasirandom number generator? Building a module will be good practice anyway, even if I can go without it ;)
 [reply] 


