Repository navigation
random.uniform can return its upper limit #49229
Description
| BPO | 4979 |
|---|---|
| Nosy | @birkenfeld, @mdickinson |
| Files |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
assignee = None
closed_at = <Date 2009-01-18.13:24:18.520>
created_at = <Date 2009-01-18.00:03:17.306>
labels = ['type-bug', 'library']
title = 'random.uniform can return its upper limit'
updated_at = <Date 2009-01-18.13:24:18.486>
user = 'https://bugs.python.org/hailperin'bugs.python.org fields:
activity = <Date 2009-01-18.13:24:18.486>
actor = 'georg.brandl'
assignee = 'none'
closed = True
closed_date = <Date 2009-01-18.13:24:18.520>
closer = 'georg.brandl'
components = ['Library (Lib)']
creation = <Date 2009-01-18.00:03:17.306>
creator = 'hailperin'
dependencies = []
files = ['12784']
hgrepos = []
issue_num = 4979
keywords = ['patch']
message_count = 4.0
messages = ['80062', '80083', '80090', '80095']
nosy_count = 4.0
nosy_names = ['georg.brandl', 'mark.dickinson', 'ggenellina', 'hailperin']
pr_nums = []
priority = 'normal'
resolution = 'fixed'
stage = None
status = 'closed'
superseder = None
type = 'behavior'
url = 'https://bugs.python.org/issue4979'
versions = ['Python 2.6', 'Python 3.0', 'Python 3.1', 'Python 2.7']
Activity
hailperin commentedon Jan 18, 2009
The documentation for random.uniform says that random.uniform(a,b)
should return a number strictly less than b, assuming a<b. (The result
should be strictly less than a if a>b.) Thus both of the following
expressions should always evaluate to False:
a<b and b in [random.uniform(a,b) for i in range(20)]
a<b and b in [random.uniform(b,a) for i in range(20)]
Yet both of them evaluate to True (except, presumably, one time in a
million) after doing the following assignments:
Other values of a and b also exist for which random.uniform will
sometimes return its upper limit. (For example, the -52 can be
increased to -51, -50, etc., with correspondingly less frequent
violations of the spec.)
Because this is a case where the code is violating an explicit
specification in the documentation, I'm reporting it as a behavior bug.
But perhaps the behavior is as intended and the documentation is at
fault. For that reason, I'm also emailing docs@python.org.
The documentation would in any case need a little touching up, in that
it has a self-contradictory specification for the case where a=b. There
is no value N for which a<=N<b, given a=b. That minor touch-up could be
combined with allowing the behavior described in this bug report, if
that behavior is in fact desired.
mdickinson commentedon Jan 18, 2009
The distinction between < and <= is fairly meaningless when applied to a
computed floating-point result. I think the docs should be fixed to
replace the < with <=. In any case, the b <= N < a bit has the
inequalities the wrong way around: presumably it was intended to read b <
N <= a. The docs for random.triangular should also be fixed in the same
way.
(N.B. What *is* always true is that the result of random.random() is never
1.0. And that's a useful property---without it, random.uniform(a, b) can
even return values *outside* the closed interval [a, b].)
To me, it doesn't seem worth slowing down random.uniform itself with extra
checks: it's the sort of function that often gets called millions of times
within a simulation, or numerical algorithm (e.g. Monte-Carlo
integration), and it's trivial for the user to add his or her own check if
necessary.
I also think it's a nice property that random.uniform currently degrades
gracefully when a == b, producing the expected point distribution at a. I
wouldn't want to change that.
So: +1 for amending the docs. -1 for changing random.uniform.
ggenellina commentedon Jan 18, 2009
Doc update
birkenfeld commentedon Jan 18, 2009
Thanks, applied in r68724.