|
|
I needed something like that some time ago. I found this RANDOM.ORG - HTTP Interface Description[^]
It's pretty great.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but with a quota of 200000 bits per day, it will take a while to do the tests. 
|
|
|
|
|
i was thinking you could download it in batches. They have a bulk generator.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but with a quota, if you want more you have to pay.
And it costs a bit more than I want to pay just to test an idea I have.
|
|
|
|
|
Great comments !
I needed a bunch of random numbers once and I grabbed a WinAES wrapper class from here and used it. It worked out pretty well.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like the way to go for me.
Everything truly random costs money, and I'm just testing something to disprove an idea I had.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: But where do I find a reliable source of a million truly random numbers?
Using a search engine you should be able to find a hardware number generator that uses Cesium-137 or Potassium-40. The hardware coming out of Switzerland seems expensive at around €900.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
|
how many digits of a number?
|
|
|
|
|
And this book is published in 1955. I wonder what computer they used.
|
|
|
|
|
They didn't, they used an electronic roulette wheel and fed the numbers into an IBM punch during May-June 1947.
It's in the introduction to the book.
|
|
|
|
|
My late Mum (a statistician) had a book of random numbers in the living room bookshelf. It was one of the most used books when I was a kid (if only because it was regularly taken out to show friends what a weirdo Mum was!   ) It was a hardcover book, possibly the same as this one (same layout of the random numbers) but I think it just got put in a skip when she downsized in the 1980s. And this hardcover version is selling at $495 !!  
|
|
|
|
|
There should be a low-cost way of generating random numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, I have an Android CI-Docker problem where I'm trying to set up jenkins and create a pipeline... But I'm having some trouble configuring the Jenkins instance which is run on a Docker container.
I'm not posting it here for a solution, I just need to know which is the right place on CP for this sort of question  . I'm not even sure if this is the right place to ask this question but I'm now kinda desperate (Stuck in the same problem for 4 days now).
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you will get much response on CodeProject, maybe you can try on a Jenkins forum.
CodeProject mostly is about Microsoft technology.
Maybe you can find an alternative for Jenkins here: continuous-integration-tools-for-mobile-app-developers[^]
modified 24-Nov-19 16:00pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the link I'll look into it... For now I think I'm gonna stick with Jenkins at least until I figure it out.
|
|
|
|
|
I would have started at the Android forum, as there are no obvious forums for neither Docker nor Jenkins.
|
|
|
|
|
That was my first thought but when I opened the Q&A section, I saw the questions were trivial... And I haven't had a good experience asking a bit difficult question. Check out
this question I asked about 5 months ago, still un-answered.
|
|
|
|
|
Like I said before I need the extra work to occupy me.
I've finally hit a wall with my Context Free Grammar class
It started out here, as tutorial code How to Make an LL(1) Parser: Lesson 1[^]
But it served me pretty well, and handled being extended fairly smoothly throughout its lifespan.
That's sometimes a sign of good architecture, and in this case, some luck.
But well, I need something far more complicated than this. Basically I want a full DOM with multiple ways to traverse it kind of like Microsoft's ActiveX Office objects.
And it has to cache.
Plus grammars are weird. The symbols are essentially strings, but those strings signify meaningful stuff pretty much only by their relationship to other symbols (strings).
Exposing an object model for that is something currently beyond me. There's too many circular possibilities. Changing the grammar in one place changes the characteristics of other parts of the grammar, like pushing a bubble around a waterbed.
I'm currently stumped.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
It seems you have an interest in the basics of parsers/compilers. There are of course hundreds of books written on the subject (if not thousands). Some of them hard, others simple to understand.
Maybe the book the link is to gives a very gentle introduction in its chapter 3 to parsing, lots of practical stuff, minimum of theory that might be helpful for you further developing your SLR and LL software. Reading it shall convince you that the "theory" behind SLR and LALR is
slightly different, but both are elegant.
Of course one may wonder why not address full LR (1), since - other than on a 64K PDP-11 oe requivalent - there are hardly limitations in tablesize.
http://hjemmesider.diku.dk/~torbenm/Basics/basics_lulu2.pdf[^]
There are others as well of course.
Note however that while 30 to 40 years ago compiler writing was a "hot" topic for lots of people working in the field of CS, it is now a subject for a handful of specialists. Front end aspects of compilers are (reasonably) well understood, the real hot topics now are in optimization/code generation for a myriad of target architectures. Just look at the main topics in the development of the GNU compiler suite of the Clan folks: it is all optimization and code analysis.
For analysis and code generation more advances matching techniques are needed than simple CFG's.
Few compilers nowadays are simple "single person" projects, due to all the phases in the mapping parts from a parse tree to an architecture, compilers tend to be large. Note the difference with e.g. a Pascal compiler in the 70-ties, just a few thousand lines of Pascal code. But then,
there compilers were basically front end handlers for a simple language (and of course
using a handwritten recursive descent parser). Languages like e.g. C++ - and to a lesser extent C,
are hard to model using LR techniques, due to the interconnection between the meaning of the symbols and the syntax. So, in general front ends for such languages are using: yes, again hard crafted recursive descent techniques.
Whether you like it or not, do not expect many people to be interested in how a basic toolset is being developed, either in C#, assembler C Lisp of whatever language.
That being said. Be aware that there is an enormous amount of readable compiler literature, also lots of free books on the internet. I think you should be encouraged to continue development of a toolset, since although theoretically well understood, having the idea of understanding some theory does not always implies having the capabilities of creating a clean implementation.
And even if - in the CP community - there would be no interest in the subject, in my - humble - opinion it is a worthwhile exercise that at least would be read and studied by me.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your input. I think on balance, you've given me a lot to think about, but also if only one person is interested or gains insight from something I write, it's still worth it. It's a labor of love. I love writing, and I love writing code. =)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
With the trend today of txt speak and the appalling grammar used by some (quite a few) so called citizen journalists I would have thought a grammar parser an impossible task.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
haha, well i'm not ambitious enough to try to process natural language. =) I'll leave that to my betters.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Because I haven't had a single one since yesterday - over 20 hours ago - and that' very unusual.
I didn't get anything from Codewitch in the stop smoking thread below for example.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
