LabVIEW Randomization

[altenbach]

In my experience, it is a good idea to believe Darin when it comes to algorithm, so my main point is that the help needs to be corrected and there should be a CAR. OTOH, there is a nonzero probability that NI could change the algorithm in the future to conform to the wording in the help. In general, I think it is a good idea to do whatever Ravens and me have been doing and code according to the help, just to be safe. 😄

[altenbach]

Reported here for investigation by NI.

[altenbach]

---

@Norbert_B wrote:

The second is to accept that 1000 iterations maybe represent a trend, but statistically speaking, is an insignificant amount of test iterations. For such small tests, i would recommend to iterate for more than 1M times (at least) in order to get representative data.

---

1000 is plenty to demonstrate a trend. Statistics gives us all the tools to assign confidence limits and even with 1000 tests we can say if the outcome is fair or not within a given confidence, especially if the difference is so large.

[JÞB]

That is why I seem to prefer the riffled index out of riffle vi for uniform distribution of integer values from a discrete number of values.

Well, the new and improved  riffle vi...you can't argue with statistics too much!

At Norbert.... then why the two poly instances of generate white noise^? One using a prime / coprime method and the other depending on an irrational number? (BTW, one too may "e"s in xxxMYER in the help file)