PE> RS> Paul,
PE> RS>      Ok , i admit - you can't have perfect random numbers - but i would
PE> RS> like to have something that is random , i.e. the probability  of a numb
PE> RS> occuring after the same one is so small , that you have got a different
PE> RS> result all the time. The rand() included in the ANSI standard is not
PE> RS> really random. If you make a program like:
PE> RS> #include 
PE> RS> main() {
PE> RS>         printf("the number was %d" , rand());
PE> RS>         }
PE> RS> You would get the same result each time. Anyway , can you explain me th
PE> RS> 'Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle' - i have never heard of it before.

PE>Look up srand() and do something like srand(time());  That
PE>will make your problem go away and you can hop into bed
PE>with ANSI.  As for Hiesenburg, well he says that the more
PE>finely you try to measure something, the more uncertain you
PE>are that the value is correct.  And it's unpredictable what
PE>actually happens. Something like that anyway.

Formally, the uncertainty in measuring the position of a particle, times
the uncertainty in measuring its momentum, can never be less than
Planck's constant. So if you know precisely how fast something's going
you have no idea where it is, and vv.

PE>Try asking in GTNET_SCIENCE. BFN.

Or Aust_AVTech, Paul?

For truly random numbers, try using radioactive decay.

Regards, FIM.

 * SLMR 2.1a * On a clear disk you can seek forever

--- Maximus 2.01wb