Quote from: kTimesG on Today at 11:35:09 AM

Quote from: nomachine on Today at 09:55:57 AM

Look result of this madness:

Puzzle:1: Log(2) for 1 is approximately 0.0. Reverse calculation: 1.0
...
Result is instant.

I can not see pattern here... Can you see ?? Grin

I'm lost here between the size of the numbers and the precision required here . . .

Result is instant because you know the result, this is called a verification. Otherwise on average you need precision to represent 2**n values for each range. In reality the precision needs to gradually increase according to log-scale rules. In even more reality floating points can't hold any rational numbers, just close-enough values (think about 1/3 which is impossible to represent as a non-fraction by a binary-based computer), so most likely you'll skip the value you're looking for unless you know its floating point formula (based on mantissa and exponent) can represent it exactly. High-level decimal libraries expansions can't save you from these problems.

I agree.

@nomachine:
I'm not entirely sure, but I can't see anything spectacular here. The log(2) is just a different notation. It makes no difference whether you use the range as a decimal number and generate random numbers there, or whether you use log(2). You could also chase the numbers through other algorithms, the result will always be the same. You cannot predict the range.

So what exactly did you want to show us or point out ?