Is continuously seeding a random number generator performance intensive?

[Frustrated]

On Friday, 3 January 2014 at 13:39:41 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:
> On Friday, 3 January 2014 at 01:01:21 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 January 2014 at 20:38:10 UTC, Jeroen Bollen 
>> wrote:
>> [...]
>> e.g.,
>>
>> seed(k);
>> for(i = 1..10)
>> print(rnd(i));
>>
>> and
>>
>> for(i = 1..10)
>> {
>> seed(time);
>> print(rnd(i));
>> }
>>
>> will both produce random sequences of numbers(and random 
>> sequences of numbers are "identically random".
>> [...]
>
> The second example is error-prone. If "time" var doesn't change 
> between cycle, it's not random at all.

Wrong, in this example I'm using rnd(i) as having a seed i. 
Obviously, I'm not using i as an interval.

i still changes per iteration of the loop so rnd still changes. 
(if I did not seed the rnd I would not have used rnd(i) but rnd;)

i.e.,

for(i = 1..10)
{
seed(time);
print(rnd(i));
}

and

for(i = 1..10)
{
seed(time);
print(rnd);
}

are different

but my example could easily have been written as

for(i = 1..10)
{
seed(time+i);
print(rnd);
}

which may be more obvious. The point of writing it the first way 
was to try to make it more clear about actually changing the seed 
vs the ith random number. (the seed changes the sequence of 
random numbers to another sequence but rnd returns the ith value 
in the sequence which is ultimately cyclical)