So the following code makes 0 < r < 1
r = ((double) rand() / (RAND_MAX))
Why does having r = ((double) rand() / (RAND_MAX + 1))
make -1 < r < 0?
Shouldn't adding one to RAND_MAX make 1 < r < 2?
Edit: I was getting a warning: integer overflow in expression
on that line, so that might be the problem. I just did cout << r << endl
and it definitely gives me values between -1 and 0
This is entirely implementation specific, but it appears that in the C++ environment you're working in, RAND_MAX
is equal to INT_MAX
.
Because of this, RAND_MAX + 1
exhibits undefined (overflow) behavior, and becomes INT_MIN
. While your initial statement was dividing (random # between 0 and INT_MAX
)/(INT_MAX
) and generating a value 0 <= r < 1
, now it's dividing (random # between 0 and INT_MAX
)/(INT_MIN
), generating a value -1 < r <= 0
In order to generate a random number 1 <= r < 2
, you would want
r = ((double) rand() / (RAND_MAX)) + 1
rand() / double(RAND_MAX)
generates a floating-point random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (inclusive), but it's not a good way for the following reasons (because RAND_MAX is usually 32767):
Due to the above limitations of rand(), a better choice for generation of random numbers between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive) would be the following snippet (similar to the example at http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/numeric/random/uniform_real_distribution ):
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
#include <chrono>
int main()
{
std::mt19937_64 rng;
// initialize the random number generator with time-dependent seed
uint64_t timeSeed = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now().time_since_epoch().count();
std::seed_seq ss{uint32_t(timeSeed & 0xffffffff), uint32_t(timeSeed>>32)};
rng.seed(ss);
// initialize a uniform distribution between 0 and 1
std::uniform_real_distribution<double> unif(0, 1);
// ready to generate random numbers
const int nSimulations = 10;
for (int i = 0; i < nSimulations; i++)
{
double currentRandomNumber = unif(rng);
std::cout << currentRandomNumber << std::endl;
}
return 0;
}
This is easy to modify to generate random numbers between 1 (inclusive) and 2 (exclusive) by replacing unif(0, 1)
with unif(1, 2)
.
No, because RAND_MAX is typically expanded to MAX_INT. So adding one (apparently) puts it at MIN_INT (although it should be undefined behavior as I'm told), hence the reversal of sign.
To get what you want you will need to move the +1 outside the computation:
r = ((double) rand() / (RAND_MAX)) + 1;
It doesn't. It makes 0 <= r < 1
, but your original is 0 <= r <= 1
.
Note that this can lead to undefined behavior if RAND_MAX + 1
overflows.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With