Talk:Randomized algorithm
![]() | Computing Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Computer science Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
Merger proposal
Needs to be merged with randomized algorithms. Fredrik 09:33, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Possible minor mistake in the Miller-Rabin primality test ?
Shouldn't the probability in the article: (3/4)100 be (1/4)100, according to the 3 propositions of the Miller-Rabin test, since the probability of not picking a witness each iteration is 1/4?
- Yes, it should have been (1/4)100. Corrected now. Andris 15:29, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
Nonterminating "algorithm"?
I am told by my theoretical Computer Science teacher that an algorithm is not an algorithm if it doesn't end (please see the wikipedia page about Algorithm: "given an initial state, will terminate in a corresponding recognizable end-state". So the side-note "(possibly nonterminating) algorithm" doesn't make sense. But I don't know enough about this to make an edit.
No, algorithms that do not terminate are still algorithms.
- There's two possible definitions of the term 'probabilistic algorithm'. See my addition to the intro section and cited books. Qwertyus (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
pseudorandom number generator?
In the first paragraph, the sentence: this means that the machine implementing the algorithm has access to a pseudorandom number generator. - does it really matter if the random number generator is pseodorandom? Would an algorithm which used a Hardware random number generator, not be classed as a randomized algorithm? If so, then this line should be changed to ' a source of random numbers'...
- The statement was oddly placed and unclear; it said "in common practice" and is describing how they're typically implemented, as opposed to defining "randomized algorithm." In fact, a program based on a PRNG isn't a randomized algorithm at all but a deterministic approximation of one, so this was quite misleading. Dcoetzee 04:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)