If I were you, I would delete that code you posted, and which I proved you it is running 10x more slower than what you were bragging about as being 10x more efficient. If 10x slower means "10x more efficient" for you, than yeah, my bad.
You mean this:
Execution time: 7.475505113601685 seconds
Total matches: 46
Execution time: 0.8068211078643799 seconds
Total matches: 7
Clearly show my point that the first is more efficient with 46 coincidences, and the second although it is faster, obtubes a low coincidence rate.
Doesn't it seem similar to what you propose with Kangaroo the second?
Your "point" makes sense only in the context of the code you provided.
The code you provided has no resemblance, structure, or respect to the Kangaroo algorithm.
It also has no correlation to the birthday paradox. You are the only one who actually knows what exactly your point was about in there. And even if you actually explained what that code is trying to do (which you hadn't), then the second code is still observably faster (and hence more efficient) when it finds the same amount of matches as the first one does. But again, I cannot understand what your code was attempting to prove. However you stated that they both solve the same problem (whatever that is), so the comparison is fair, if the comparing factor was "how many matches does it find". Again, in lack of a concrete statement of what problem it's trying to solve. Maybe if you come up with something that actually has to do with the Kangaroo algorithm (or of course, with the birthday paradox, though that would be something that has nothing to do with Kangaroo) maybe someone will bother to check it. I can promise it won't be me. And one last thing I have to address to you, since it's my last one: I am not and was not ever either digaran or any other user on this forum. Good luck mate.