Here is a solution that tries to minimize the number of calls to rand5() while keeping the implementation simple and efficient; in particular, it does not require arbitrary large integers unlike Adam Rosenfield’s second answer. It exploits the fact that 23/19 = 1.21052... is a good rational approximation to log(7)/log(5) = 1.20906..., thus we can generate 19 random elements of {1,...,7} out of 23 random elements of {1,...,5} by rejection sampling with only a small rejection probability. On average, the algorithm below takes about 1.266 calls to rand5() for each call to rand7(). If the distribution of rand5() is uniform, so is rand7().

uint_fast64_t pool;

int capacity = 0;

void new_batch (void)
{
  uint_fast64_t r;
  int i;

  do {
    r = 0;
    for (i = 0; i < 23; i++)
      r = 5 * r + (rand5() - 1);
  } while (r >= 11398895185373143ULL);  /* 7**19, a bit less than 5**23 */

  pool = r;
  capacity = 19;
}

int rand7 (void)
{
  int r;

  if (capacity == 0)
    new_batch();

  r = pool % 7;
  pool /= 7;
  capacity--;

  return r + 1;
}

(我剽窃了亚当·罗森菲尔德的答案，使其运行速度提高了7%左右。)

假设rand5()返回分布相等的{0,1,2,3,4}中的一个，目标是返回分布相等的{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}。

int rand7() {
  i = 5 * rand5() + rand5();
  max = 25;
  //i is uniform among {0 ... max-1}
  while(i < max%7) {
    //i is uniform among {0 ... (max%7 - 1)}
    i *= 5;
    i += rand5(); //i is uniform {0 ... (((max%7)*5) - 1)}
    max %= 7;
    max *= 5; //once again, i is uniform among {0 ... max-1}
  }
  return(i%7);
}

我们在跟踪这个循环在变量max中所能产生的最大值。如果到目前为止的结果在max%7和max-1之间，那么结果将均匀分布在该范围内。如果不是，则使用余数，余数是0到max%7-1之间的随机数，然后再次调用rand()来生成一个新的数字和一个新的max。然后我们重新开始。

编辑:在这个方程中，期望调用rand5()的次数是x:

x =  2     * 21/25
   + 3     *  4/25 * 14/20
   + 4     *  4/25 *  6/20 * 28/30
   + 5     *  4/25 *  6/20 *  2/30 * 7/10
   + 6     *  4/25 *  6/20 *  2/30 * 3/10 * 14/15
   + (6+x) *  4/25 *  6/20 *  2/30 * 3/10 *  1/15
x = about 2.21 calls to rand5()

rand25() =5*(rand5()-1) + rand5()

rand7() { 
   while(true) {
       int r = rand25();
       if (r < 21) return r%3;         
   }
}

为什么这样做:循环永远运行的概率是0。

这个解决方案不浪费任何熵，并给出了范围内第一个可用的真正随机数。随着每一次迭代，得不到答案的概率可证明地降低了。在N次迭代中得到答案的概率是0到max (5^N)之间的随机数小于该范围内7的最大倍数(max-max%7)的概率。必须迭代至少两次。但这对所有解都是成立的。

int random7() {
  range = 1;
  remainder = 0;

  while (1) {
    remainder = remainder * 5 + random5() - 1;
    range = range * 5;

    limit = range - (range % 7);
    if (remainder < limit) return (remainder % 7) + 1;

    remainder = remainder % 7;
    range = range % 7;
  }
}

数值上等价于:

r5=5;
num=random5()-1;
while (1) {
   num=num*5+random5()-1;
   r5=r5*5;
   r7=r5-r5%7;
   if (num<r7) return num%7+1;
}

第一个代码以模形式计算。第二个代码只是简单的数学。或者我在某个地方犯了错误。: -)

为什么不除以5再乘以7，然后四舍五入呢?(当然，你必须使用浮点数no.)

它比其他解决方案更简单、更可靠(真的吗?)例如，在Python中:

def ranndomNo7():
    import random
    rand5 = random.randint(4)    # Produces range: [0, 4]
    rand7 = int(rand5 / 5 * 7)   # /5, *7, +0.5 and floor()
    return rand7

这不是很容易吗?

下面使用随机数发生器在{1,2,3,4,5,6,7}上产生均匀分布，在{1,2,3,4,5}上产生均匀分布。代码很混乱，但逻辑很清晰。

public static int random_7(Random rg) {
    int returnValue = 0;
    while (returnValue == 0) {
        for (int i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
            returnValue = (returnValue << 1) + SimulateFairCoin(rg);
        }
    }
    return returnValue;
}

private static int SimulateFairCoin(Random rg) {
    while (true) {
        int flipOne = random_5_mod_2(rg);
        int flipTwo = random_5_mod_2(rg);

        if (flipOne == 0 && flipTwo == 1) {
            return 0;
        }
        else if (flipOne == 1 && flipTwo == 0) {
            return 1;
        }
    }
}

private static int random_5_mod_2(Random rg) {
    return random_5(rg) % 2;
}

private static int random_5(Random rg) {
    return rg.Next(5) + 1;
}