[NBLUG/talk] Request for help--how to program shuffling

[Eric Levinson]

It seems to me that your proof breaks with reality at 2B.  A royal flush is
just as probable as any given bust.  It's just that there are so many more
busts than roayal flushes.  To define as non-random any combination of cards
which has value in poker may prove something but not about shuffling.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-admin at nblug.org [mailto:talk-admin at nblug.org]On Behalf Of
> Steve Zimmerman
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:01 PM
> To: talk at nblug.org
> Subject: Re: [NBLUG/talk] Request for help--how to program shuffling
>
>
> On Tuesday 20 May 2003 07:35 pm, you wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 May 2003, Steve Zimmerman wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Therefore, *a truly random shuffle would prevent the
> > > programmer from ordering the cards in any way whatsoever,
> > > either randomly or non-randomly!*
>
> I amend the above statement as follows:
>
> 	"A true shuffle is not random."
>
> Proof of the statement "A true shuffle is not random.":
>
> [Ground rules for the proof ]:
>
> 	1.  Notation involved in proof:
> 	         a.  Face cards
> 		A=Ace, K=King, Q=Queen,
>                    	J=Jack
> 	         b.  Numbered cards
>                              2=2, 3=3, 4=4, etc.
> 	         b.  Suits
> 		s=spades, c=clubs, h=hearts,
>                   	d=diamonds
>
> 	2.  Meta-logic to be used in proof:
> 	        a.  Definition of "normative poker values":
>
> 		i.     pair
>                             ii.    pairs
>                             iii.   three of a kind
>                             iv.   straight
>                             v.    flush
>                             vi.   full house
>                             vii.  four of a kind
>                             viii. straight flush
>
> 	        b.  Definition of "random hand":
>                             A poker hand which contains no
>                            "normative poker values"
>
> 	        c.  Definition of the perceptual primitive:
>
>                            The"perceptual primitive" is the
>                            fact that perception is non-amenable
>                            to proof, i.e., no one "proves" that
>                            blue is blue.  Blue is blue by
>                            concatenation of a certain sense
>                            datum (the first "Blue" in the sentence,
>                            'Blue is blue.') with a certain word (the
>                             second "blue" in the sentence, 'Blue
>                             is blue.').  No proof is involved, hence
>                             the word, "primitive."  Sense data is
>                             involved, hence the word "perceptual."
>
>
> [Proof proper of the statement,
> "A 'true shuffle' is not random." ]:
>
> Hand #1:  As 4d 7s 8s 9h
>
> Hand #1 is a random hand, according to
> the definition of randomness.
>
>
> Hand #2: 4d 4h 9c Jc Ad
>
> Hand #2 is not a random hand, according to
> the definition of randomness.
>
> By the perceptual primitive I know that the
> distribution of a shuffle will produce both
> random and non-random hands.  Hence,
> a true shuffle is not random.
>
> I don't want randomness in my shuffle
> function.  I want a computer
> simulation of a true shuffle.
>
> [End of proof]
>
> I will try to read the recommended Knuth passages,
> but I must say, he's not a personal favorite of mine.
> My heroes are Ritchie and Torvalds.
>
> : )
> Thank you for reading this.
> : )
> All responses except flames are welcome.
> : )
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at nblug.org
> http://nblug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>