这类似于@RobMcAfee，除了我使用魔术数字而不是2维数组。

int rand7() {
    int m = 1203068;
    int r = (m >> (rand5() - 1) * 5 + rand5() - 1) & 7;

    return (r > 0) ? r : rand7();
}

我觉得你们都想多了。难道这个简单的解决方案行不通吗?

int rand7(void)
{
    static int startpos = 0;
    startpos = (startpos+5) % (5*7);
    return (((startpos + rand5()-1)%7)+1);
}

rand7() = (rand5()+rand5()+rand5()+rand5()+rand5()+rand5()+rand5())%7+1

编辑:这并不奏效。误差约为千分之二(假设是完美的rand5)。桶得到:

value   Count  Error%
1       11158  -0.0035
2       11144  -0.0214
3       11144  -0.0214
4       11158  -0.0035
5       11172  +0.0144
6       11177  +0.0208
7       11172  +0.0144

通过转换到的和

n   Error%
10  +/- 1e-3,
12  +/- 1e-4,
14  +/- 1e-5,
16  +/- 1e-6,
...
28  +/- 3e-11

似乎每增加2就增加一个数量级

BTW:上面的误差表不是通过采样产生的，而是通过以下递归关系产生的:

P [x,n]是给定n次调用rand5，输出=x可能发生的次数。

  p[1,1] ... p[5,1] = 1
  p[6,1] ... p[7,1] = 0

  p[1,n] = p[7,n-1] + p[6,n-1] + p[5,n-1] + p[4,n-1] + p[3,n-1]
  p[2,n] = p[1,n-1] + p[7,n-1] + p[6,n-1] + p[5,n-1] + p[4,n-1]
  p[3,n] = p[2,n-1] + p[1,n-1] + p[7,n-1] + p[6,n-1] + p[5,n-1]
  p[4,n] = p[3,n-1] + p[2,n-1] + p[1,n-1] + p[7,n-1] + p[6,n-1]
  p[5,n] = p[4,n-1] + p[3,n-1] + p[2,n-1] + p[1,n-1] + p[7,n-1]
  p[6,n] = p[5,n-1] + p[4,n-1] + p[3,n-1] + p[2,n-1] + p[1,n-1]
  p[7,n] = p[6,n-1] + p[5,n-1] + p[4,n-1] + p[3,n-1] + p[2,n-1]

这相当于Adam Rosenfield的解决方案，但对一些读者来说可能更清楚一些。它假设rand5()是一个函数，返回1到5范围内的统计随机整数。

int rand7()
{
    int vals[5][5] = {
        { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 },
        { 6, 7, 1, 2, 3 },
        { 4, 5, 6, 7, 1 },
        { 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 },
        { 7, 0, 0, 0, 0 }
    };

    int result = 0;
    while (result == 0)
    {
        int i = rand5();
        int j = rand5();
        result = vals[i-1][j-1];
    }
    return result;
}

How does it work? Think of it like this: imagine printing out this double-dimension array on paper, tacking it up to a dart board and randomly throwing darts at it. If you hit a non-zero value, it's a statistically random value between 1 and 7, since there are an equal number of non-zero values to choose from. If you hit a zero, just keep throwing the dart until you hit a non-zero. That's what this code is doing: the i and j indexes randomly select a location on the dart board, and if we don't get a good result, we keep throwing darts.

就像亚当说的，在最坏的情况下，它可以一直运行下去，但从统计上看，最坏的情况永远不会发生。：）

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)。

我玩了一下，我为这个Rand(7)算法写了“测试环境”。例如，如果你想尝试哪种分布给你的算法，或者需要多少次迭代才能生成所有不同的随机值(对于Rand(7) 1-7)，你可以使用它。

我的核心算法是:

return (Rand5() + Rand5()) % 7 + 1;

和亚当·罗森菲尔德的分布一样均匀。(我将其包含在代码片段中)

private static int Rand7WithRand5()
{
    //PUT YOU FAVOURITE ALGORITHM HERE//

    //1. Stackoverflow winner
    int i;
    do
    {
        i = 5 * (Rand5() - 1) + Rand5(); // i is now uniformly random between 1 and 25
    } while (i > 21);
    // i is now uniformly random between 1 and 21
    return i % 7 + 1;

    //My 2 cents
    //return (Rand5() + Rand5()) % 7 + 1;
}

这个“测试环境”可以采用任何Rand(n)算法并测试和评估它(分布和速度)。只需将代码放入“Rand7WithRand5”方法并运行代码片段。

一些观察:

亚当·罗森菲尔德(Adam Rosenfield)的算法并不比我的算法分布得更好。不管怎样，两种算法的分布都很糟糕。 本机Rand7(随机的。Next(1,8))完成，因为它在大约200+迭代中生成了给定间隔内的所有成员，Rand7WithRand5算法的顺序为10k(约30-70k) 真正的挑战不是编写从Rand(5)生成Rand(7)的方法，而是生成几乎均匀分布的值。