亚当·罗森菲尔德正确答案的前提是:

X = 5^n(在他的例子中，n=2) 操作n个rand5次调用以获得范围[1,x]内的数字y Z = ((int)(x / 7)) * 7 如果y > z，再试一次。否则返回y % 7 + 1

当n = 2时，有4种可能:y ={22,23,24,25}。如果你使用n = 6，你只有1个扔掉的东西:y ={15625}。

5^6 is 15625 7 times 2232 is 15624

你又给rand5个电话。但是，您获得一个丢弃值(或无限循环)的机会要低得多。如果有办法让y没有可能的一次性值，我还没有找到它。

假设rand(n)在这里表示“从0到n-1均匀分布的随机整数”，下面是使用Python的randint的代码示例，它具有这种效果。它只使用randint(5)和常量来产生randint(7)的效果。其实有点傻

from random import randint
sum = 7
while sum >= 7:
    first = randint(0,5)   
    toadd = 9999
    while toadd>1:
        toadd = randint(0,5)
    if toadd:
        sum = first+5
    else:
        sum = first

assert 7>sum>=0 
print sum

Here's a solution that fits entirely within integers and is within about 4% of optimal (i.e. uses 1.26 random numbers in {0..4} for every one in {0..6}). The code's in Scala, but the math should be reasonably clear in any language: you take advantage of the fact that 7^9 + 7^8 is very close to 5^11. So you pick an 11 digit number in base 5, and then interpret it as a 9 digit number in base 7 if it's in range (giving 9 base 7 numbers), or as an 8 digit number if it's over the 9 digit number, etc.:

abstract class RNG {
  def apply(): Int
}

class Random5 extends RNG {
  val rng = new scala.util.Random
  var count = 0
  def apply() = { count += 1 ; rng.nextInt(5) }
}

class FiveSevener(five: RNG) {
  val sevens = new Array[Int](9)
  var nsevens = 0
  val to9 = 40353607;
  val to8 = 5764801;
  val to7 = 823543;
  def loadSevens(value: Int, count: Int) {
    nsevens = 0;
    var remaining = value;
    while (nsevens < count) {
      sevens(nsevens) = remaining % 7
      remaining /= 7
      nsevens += 1
    }
  }
  def loadSevens {
    var fivepow11 = 0;
    var i=0
    while (i<11) { i+=1 ; fivepow11 = five() + fivepow11*5 }
    if (fivepow11 < to9) { loadSevens(fivepow11 , 9) ; return }
    fivepow11 -= to9
    if (fivepow11 < to8) { loadSevens(fivepow11 , 8) ; return }
    fivepow11 -= to8
    if (fivepow11 < 3*to7) loadSevens(fivepow11 % to7 , 7)
    else loadSevens
  }
  def apply() = {
    if (nsevens==0) loadSevens
    nsevens -= 1
    sevens(nsevens)
  }
}

如果你将一个测试粘贴到解释器中(实际上是REPL)，你会得到:

scala> val five = new Random5
five: Random5 = Random5@e9c592

scala> val seven = new FiveSevener(five)
seven: FiveSevener = FiveSevener@143c423

scala> val counts = new Array[Int](7)
counts: Array[Int] = Array(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)

scala> var i=0 ; while (i < 100000000) { counts( seven() ) += 1 ; i += 1 }
i: Int = 100000000

scala> counts
res0: Array[Int] = Array(14280662, 14293012, 14281286, 14284836, 14287188,
14289332, 14283684)

scala> five.count
res1: Int = 125902876

分布很好，很平坦(在每个箱子中，10^8的1/7大约在10k范围内，就像预期的近似高斯分布一样)。

下面是Adam回答的Python实现。

import random

def rand5():
    return random.randint(1, 5)

def rand7():
    while True:
        r = 5 * (rand5() - 1) + rand5()
        #r is now uniformly random between 1 and 25
        if (r <= 21):
            break
    #result is now uniformly random between 1 and 7
    return r % 7 + 1

我喜欢把我正在研究的算法扔进Python，这样我就可以摆弄它们，我想我把它贴在这里，希望它对外面的人有用，而不是花很长时间来拼凑。

我想到了一个解决这个问题的有趣方法，想和大家分享一下。

function rand7() {

    var returnVal = 4;

    for (var n=0; n<3; n++) {
        var rand = rand5();

        if (rand==1||rand==2){
            returnVal+=1;
        }
        else if (rand==3||rand==4) {
            returnVal-=1;
        }
    }

    return returnVal;
}

我构建了一个测试函数，循环rand7() 10,000次，将所有返回值相加，然后除以10,000。如果rand7()工作正常，我们计算的平均值应该是4 -例如，(1+2+3+4+5+6+7 / 7)= 4。在做了多次测试后，平均值确实是4:)

这个答案更像是一个从Rand5函数中获得最大熵的实验。因此，T有点不清楚，几乎可以肯定比其他实现慢得多。

假设0-4为均匀分布，0-6为均匀分布:

public class SevenFromFive
{
  public SevenFromFive()
  {
    // this outputs a uniform ditribution but for some reason including it 
    // screws up the output distribution
    // open question Why?
    this.fifth = new ProbabilityCondensor(5, b => {});
    this.eigth = new ProbabilityCondensor(8, AddEntropy);
  } 

  private static Random r = new Random();
  private static uint Rand5()
  {
    return (uint)r.Next(0,5);
  }

  private class ProbabilityCondensor
  {
    private readonly int samples;
    private int counter;
    private int store;
    private readonly Action<bool> output;

    public ProbabilityCondensor(int chanceOfTrueReciprocal,
      Action<bool> output)
    {
      this.output = output;
      this.samples = chanceOfTrueReciprocal - 1;  
    }

    public void Add(bool bit)
    {
      this.counter++;
      if (bit)
        this.store++;   
      if (counter == samples)
      {
        bool? e;
        if (store == 0)
          e = false;
        else if (store == 1)
          e = true;
        else
          e = null;// discard for now       
        counter = 0;
        store = 0;
        if (e.HasValue)
          output(e.Value);
      }
    }
  }

  ulong buffer = 0;
  const ulong Mask = 7UL;
  int bitsAvail = 0;
  private readonly ProbabilityCondensor fifth;
  private readonly ProbabilityCondensor eigth;

  private void AddEntropy(bool bit)
  {
    buffer <<= 1;
    if (bit)
      buffer |= 1;      
    bitsAvail++;
  }

  private void AddTwoBitsEntropy(uint u)
  {
    buffer <<= 2;
    buffer |= (u & 3UL);    
    bitsAvail += 2;
  }

  public uint Rand7()
  {
    uint selection;   
    do
    {
      while (bitsAvail < 3)
      {
        var x = Rand5();
        if (x < 4)
        {
          // put the two low order bits straight in
          AddTwoBitsEntropy(x);
          fifth.Add(false);
        }
        else
        { 
          fifth.Add(true);
        }
      }
      // read 3 bits
      selection = (uint)((buffer & Mask));
      bitsAvail -= 3;     
      buffer >>= 3;
      if (selection == 7)
        eigth.Add(true);
      else
        eigth.Add(false);
    }
    while (selection == 7);   
    return selection;
  }
}

每次调用Rand5添加到缓冲区的比特数目前是4/5 * 2，所以是1.6。 如果包括1/5的概率值，则增加0.05，因此增加1.65，但请参阅代码中的注释，我不得不禁用它。

调用Rand7消耗的比特数= 3 + 1/8 *(3 + 1/8 *(3 + 1/8 *(… 这是3 + 3/8 + 3/64 + 3/512…大约是3.42

通过从7中提取信息，我每次调用回收1/8*1/7位，大约0.018

这使得每次调用的净消耗为3.4比特，这意味着每一次Rand7调用到Rand5的比率为2.125。最优值应该是2.1。

我可以想象这种方法比这里的许多其他方法都要慢得多，除非调用Rand5的代价非常昂贵(比如调用一些外部熵源)。