...
Run: 2000 buks:231 stds:273
...
Run: 3000 buks:346 stds:393
...
Run: 4000 buks:466 stds:520
...
Run: 5000 buks:577 stds:663
Run: 5001 buks:578 stds:664
Run: 5002 buks:579 stds:664
Run: 5003 buks:579 stds:664
Run: 5004 buks:579 stds:665
So the odds are: 5000 * 536870912 = 2684354560000 total checks
/ false hits = odds of a false hit
/ 579 = 4636190949 offset
/ 665 = 4036623398 0xdeadbeef
Expected odds = 4294967296
Which mean you are right!
However, as the statistics above reflect, and as I observed from several (very) short runs whilst sanity checking the code; the offset seems to beat the odds every time; whilst the fixed magic number seems to come a little shy of it every time.
There are not enough observations and not a sufficiently big difference between them to conclude that this is anything other than expected variation. But it does seem consistent.
I've started another (low priority) run with some sanity check code enabled that counts the occurrences of each random value seen. The extra code means it runs much more slowly; and the restrictions of my physical memory mean I've had to limit the counts to unsigned bytes; but by outputting when those counts rollover it should give a clear indication of whether all values are being generated, as 96 % of them should rollover within a few dozen runs of each other  if my calculations are correct I should see the bulk of them at around 1024 runs mark.
All of which goes to reinforce my long standing observation that  for me  statistics is the second most unintuitive thing  after quantum mechanics  that I know justenoughtobedangerous about.
At least with QM I'm in good company when it comes to finding it spooky :)
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks  Silence betokens consent  Love the truth but pardon error.
