Section: 99 [tr1::rand.eng.mers], 99 [tr1::tr.rand.eng.mers] Status: NAD Submitter: Stephan Tolksdorf Opened: 2008-02-18 Last modified: 2016-02-10
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all issues with NAD status.
99 [tr1::tr.rand.eng.mers](10) requires that operator== for the mersenne_twister returns true if and only if the states of two mersenne_twisters, consisting each of n integers between 0 and 2w - 1, are completely equal. This is a contradiction with 99 [tr1::tr.rand.req](3) because the given definition of the state also includes the lower r bits of x(i-n), which will never be used to generate a random number. If two mersenne_twisters only differ in the lower bits of x(i-n) they will not compare equal, although they will produce an identical sequence of random numbers.
99 [tr1::rand.eng.mers] in the latest C++ draft does not specify the behaviour of operator== but uses a similar definition of the state and, just like 99 [tr1::tr.rand.eng.mers], requires the textual representation of a mersenne_twister_engine to consist of Xi-n to Xi-1, including the lower bits of Xi-n. This leads to two problems: First, the unsuspecting implementer is likely to erroneously compare the lower r bits of Xi-n in operator==. Second, if only the lower r bits differ, two mersenne_twister_engines will compare equal (if correctly implemented) but have different textual representations, which conceptually is a bit ugly.
I propose that a paragraph or footnote is added to 99 [tr1::rand.eng.mers] which clarifies that the lower r bits of Xi-n are not to be compared in operator== and operator!=. It would only be consequent if furthermore the specification for the textual respresentation was changed to Xi-n bitand ((2w - 1) - (2r - 1)), Xi-(n-1), ..., Xi-1 or something similar.
These changes would likely have no practical effect, but would allow an implementation that does the right thing to be standard-conformant.
[ Bellevue: ]
Fermi Lab has no objection to the proposed change. However it feels that more time is needed to check the details, which would suggest a change to REVIEW.
Bill feels that this is NAD, not enough practical importance to abandon the simple definition of equality, and someone would have to do a lot more study to ensure that all cases are covered for a very small payback. The submitter admits that "These changes would likely have no practical effect,", and according to Plum's razor this means that it is not worth the effort!
Revisted: Agree that the fact that there is no practical difference means that no change can be justified.
In 99 [tr1::rand.eng.mers]:
Insert at the end of para 2.:
[Note: The lower r bits of Xi-n do not influence the state transition and hence should not be compared when comparing two mersenne_twister_engine objects. -- end note]
In para 5. change:
The textual representation of xi consists of the values of Xi-n , ..., Xi-1, in that order.