The probability of generating a zero is incredibly low if you use the normal distribution curve.
So it is not necessarily that it doesn't generate zero, they did not run enough times to increase the probability of actually generating a zero.
So it is not necessarily that it doesn't generate zero, they did not run enough times to increase the probability of actually generating a zero.
You definitely would expect a roughly equal number of 0s as any other of those numbers since it's uniformly distributed. And definitely not 0
How would random numbers be uniformly distributed?
Think about the odds of a uranium atom decaying in a given second. Certainly a random event, yet for most seconds, the value is False, not True.
If you have a random number generator your are relying on the fact that it is uniformly distributed and thus has no bias towards certain numbers. Or if it is not uniformly distributed you would want to know the exact distribution so you can correct for it.
If you have an RNG that is treated as putting out uniformly distributed numbers but it is does in fact favor some numbers over others, that would be a defect that can cause problems/be exploited.
With a few (say 10, so 655360 runs), you will not get a uniform distribution, and some numbers (like 0) might not appear.
They also write:
> Running the same programs on an Intel processor, and the 0's are there with no problem.