From owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Mon Oct 26 16:33:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www2.open-std.org Received: by www2.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 19761C178E4; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:33:42 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.130]) by www2.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC88C178E3 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:33:39 +0100 (CET) X-Cam-AntiVirus: no malware found X-Cam-SpamDetails: not scanned X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/ Received: from hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.51]:49404) by ppsw-0.csi.cam.ac.uk (smtp.hermes.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.150]:25) with esmtpa (EXTERNAL:nmm1) id 1N2RZi-00059A-2u (Exim 4.70) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:33:38 +0000 Received: from prayer by hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (hermes.cam.ac.uk) with local (PRAYER:nmm1) id 1N2RZi-0007CF-SB (Exim 4.67) for sc22wg5@open-std.org (return-path ); Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:33:38 +0000 Received: from [131.111.10.32] by webmail.hermes.cam.ac.uk with HTTP (Prayer-1.3.2); 26 Oct 2009 15:33:38 +0000 Date: 26 Oct 2009 15:33:38 +0000 From: "N.M. Maclaren" To: SC22WG5 Subject: Re: [ukfortran] (SC22WG5.4123) (j3.2006) Parallel random numbers Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20091026151632.1B333C178E3@www2.open-std.org> References: <20091020154252.946EAC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021161933.1B2FCC178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021171501.21FA4C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091021175702.E4D26C178E3@www2.open-std.org> <20091022043326.83DB9C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022051613.0AEF5C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022062554.CF066C178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022115243.E875EC178E4@www2.open-std.org> <20091022160201.90187C76BB7@www2.open-std.org> <20091022172236.755B9C76BB7@www2.open-std.org> <20091023215253.78206C76BB7@www2.open-std.org> <20091026130908.E4F6BC178E1@www2.open-std.org> <20091026151632.1B333C178E3@www2.open-std.org> X-Mailer: Prayer v1.3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk On Oct 26 2009, Aleksandar Donev wrote: > >> 2) Are you really saying that the Fortran standard should REQUIRE a >> known, deficient approach, of a nature that every expert in this area >> regards as unacceptable? That's not the Fortran I know. > >The problem is that your response only says what is wrong with the >independent sequence model, it does not say anything about why your >proposed approach (processor dependent) is good. If we really want to do >something good, we should do it, rather than rely on some compiler >intern to get it right. At least the independent sequence model is clear >and simple. No, that's not right. I did NOT say that the independent sequence model has anything wrong with it; I said that what was being proposed specified an ASSOCIATED sequence model. Yes, it's clear and simple - and VERY bad. The problem about specifying that this has to be done well is that that requires some EXTREMELY specialist skills. I don't know how many people in the world who are even second-rank experts, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was still only in the hundreds or perhaps even dozens :-( I will try to explain in a paper. I may not succeed. regards, Nick.