Re: [R] precision of rnorm

From: Thomas Lumley <>
Date: Fri 16 Dec 2005 - 04:43:58 EST

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Phineas wrote:

> How many distinct values can rnorm return?

2^32-1. This is described in help(Random)

> I assume that rnorm manipulates runif in some way, runif uses the Mersenne
> Twister, which has a period of 2^19937 - 1. Given that runif returns a 64
> bit precision floating point number in [0,1], the actual period of the
> Mersenne Twister in a finite precision world must be significantly less.

No. Not at all. Consider a sequence of 1-bit numbers: individual values will repeat fairly frequently but the sequence need not be periodic with any period
is the start of one fairly obvious non-periodic sequence.

There are reasons that a longer period than 2^32 is useful. The most obvious is that you can construct higher-resolution numbers from several runif()s. The Mersenne Twister was designed so that quite long subsequences (623 elements) would be uniformly distributed.

Less obvious is that fact that a periodic pseudorandom sequence is likely to show a frequency distribution of repeat values that differs from the random sequence once you get beyond about the square root of the period. This means that a 32-bit PRNG should really have a period of at least 2^64.

The randaes package provides a runif() that uses 64 bits to construct a double, providing about 53 bits of randomness.

> One of the arguments for Monte Carlo over the bootstrap is that for a sample
> size n the bootstrap can return at most 2^n distinct resamples, however for
> even for relatively small sample sizes there may be no increase in precision
> in using Monte Carlo.

I don't get this at all. What technique are you comparing to the bootstrap and for what purpose?

         -thomas mailing list PLEASE do read the posting guide! Received on Fri Dec 16 05:07:47 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 03 Mar 2006 - 03:41:39 EST