这个表达式足以得到1 - 7之间的随机整数

int j = ( rand5()*2 + 4 ) % 7 + 1;

int rand7()
{
    int zero_one_or_two = ( rand5() + rand5() - 1 ) % 3 ;
    return rand5() + zero_one_or_two ;
}

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?

以下是我的发现:

Random5产生1~5的范围，随机分布 如果我们运行3次并将它们加在一起，我们将得到3~15个随机分布的范围 在3~15范围内执行算术 (3~15) - 1 = (2~14) (2~14)/2 = (1~7)

然后我们得到1~7的范围，这是我们正在寻找的Random7。

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)。

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)。