Difference between revisions of "Talk:221: Random Number"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(random set theory)
Line 21: Line 21:
:The comic is from February 9, 2007.  The 3.55 firmware was released December 7, 2010. {{unsigned ip|}}
:The comic is from February 9, 2007.  The 3.55 firmware was released December 7, 2010. {{unsigned ip|}}
This seems to have turned up in [http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/set-theory SMBC].  [[User:.42|.42]] ([[User talk:.42|talk]]) 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:00, 18 July 2016

The syntax looks like perfectly valid java to me. 22:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Java to me too. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Java code for this would be something like "public static int fin(){}" or just "public int fin(){}". I think the code would still compile though without the public/private part. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
I know this comment is from several years ago, but I'll add this just for posterity. The "default" access modifier exists in java and is somewhere in between "private" and "protected". You can only use it by otherwise unspecifying the access modifier. 16:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
How can Java come to mind when it is pure C syntax, which predates Java by several years and is arguably better known. A feature of most languages is that they have a "C-like syntax". See, a whole page on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C-based_programming_languages 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
"C-like syntax" is the best explain, this covers all. Even when I disagree that it's better known than Java these days.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to be particularly pedantic, the double slash for the comment (which is generally utilised in object oriented C-style languages) should be avoided in C to retain backwards compatibility with C89, although it's a valid construct in C99. I'd offer, too, that the lack of library inclusion suggests this isn't necessarily Java, though it's been a couple years since I've had the opportunity to code in it. Thokling (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really worth putting effort in backward compatibility for stuff a simple regex can fix:
$ perl -pi.bak -e 's!//(.*)$!/\*$1\*/!' *.c 03:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As a proof of good joke, RFC 1149 was successfully implemented several times. -- Hkmaly (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a poor “random” function like “return 4;” would be quickly determined by statistical test tools (Diehard, Dieharder, etc.) to generate very poor random number. Samiam (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The number is random, I'm sure Randall really did this "fair dice roll". And even the name of the function is correct, it just returns a random number. A programmer would expect a random number generator, but Randall can't roll the dice all the time.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
<<sound of crickets chirping>> 02:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Playstation 3 jailbreak reference?

Isn't this a reference to Sony Playstation 3's random number generator function that allowed to discover the private key to 3.55 firmware? (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The comic is from February 9, 2007. The 3.55 firmware was released December 7, 2010. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

This seems to have turned up in SMBC. .42 (talk) 20:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)