Talk:Random Latin squares: Difference between revisions
→"restarting row" method: thanks
(→"restarting row" method: Nigel's conjecture is correct!) |
(→"restarting row" method: thanks) |
||
Line 46:
:::: My Go solution also uses the "restarting row" method which I certainly expected to be uniformly random but, when I ran Nigel's test, sure enough c and d occurred about twice as often as a and b. So it does demonstrate how easily one can be led astray by intuition in this sort of work. Anyway I'm going to rewrite the Go solution on the lines Nigel suggested earlier and will re-post later today. --[[User:PureFox|PureFox]] ([[User talk:PureFox|talk]]) 13:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
::::: Thanks for the correction, both of you. I wonder, did I misinterpret the algorithm as described in the paper, or is the author simply incorrect? Is the "restarting row" method actually more of a "restarting square" method? I will be looking to rewrite my submission as soon as I can wrap my head around an algorithm that works. --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 16:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
:: in particular, you may find this interesting: "The probability of finishing the entire LS is a combination of the previous series of probabilities, but not their product, as the rows are not independent to each other (i.e. row i depends of values on row i-1)." --[[User:Chunes|Chunes]] ([[User talk:Chunes|talk]]) 19:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
| |||