Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:24:43 -0600
From:      Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>
To:        Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>
Cc:        svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r280955 - in head/sys: modules/notrandom dev/notrandom
Message-ID:  <1427901883.82583.72.camel@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <551C0B2A.9060006@freebsd.org>
References:  <20150401113628.GA16649@dft-labs.eu> <20150401114313.GZ64665@FreeBSD.org> <20150401115204.GB16649@dft-labs.eu> <1427897897.82583.62.camel@freebsd.org> <551C0A92.8070507@freebsd.org> <551C0B2A.9060006@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 23:13 +0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 4/1/15 11:11 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> > On 4/1/15 10:18 PM, Ian Lepore wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 13:52 +0200, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
> >>> As a side note I'm surprised with the choice of 7.
> >>>
> >>> I would expect 3, no more, no less. 3 would be the number returned,
> >>> and the number readers receive would be 3.
> >> 5 would be right out.
> >
> > there is prior art for 7...  I remember seeing it once.. 7, 7, 7, 7, 
> > 7 ...
> > that's the trouble with randomness, you can't really tell..
> > I remember a part of a paper on the topic by Adams S,  et al.
> > I think it was towards the end of the paper.
> 
> I stand corrected...  the number selected in the paper was 9
> 

Odd, I though Lennon & Ono were the primary proponents of number 9, as
detailed in their 1968 work on the subject.

-- Ian





Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1427901883.82583.72.camel>