4 ms·
Right, but storing 52! distinct values isn’t something a computer is going to be able to do.
by danielheath 1y ago
Right, but storing 52! distinct values isn’t something a computer is going to be able to do.
- adastra22 1y agoA quantum computer can.
- zmgsabst 1y agoSo? You’re only using one deck at a time; so you only need to generate 1 bit randomly 226 times — then use that deck.
- bobbylarrybobby 1y agoWithout a bunch of (unentangled) electrons you can observe, getting 226 truly random bits in quick succession doesn't seem all that easy.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoDepends on what you mean by "truly random" but if it's "cryptographically secure random" then it's not particularly hard. There are strong monetary incentives to break all kinds of private keys but most of the time they hold pretty well.
- Sanzig 1y agoRDRAND has a throughput of hundreds of megabytes per second on most processors. Getting 226 bits is pretty easy, even shuffling millions of decks per second you'd be bottlenecked elsewhere. (That does sound like a fun optimization challenge: "write a program to fairly shuffle the most decks of cards per second possible.")
- jdietrich 1y agoQuantum random number generators are commercially available, relatively inexpensive and can supply hundreds of megabits per second of truly random data from a single PCIe card.
- alexey-salmin 1y agoWell neither can a human. The whole premise of computers being unable to do shuffling as good as humans is ridiculous. 52! is huge but log(52!) is not. If anything it's humans (unless specifically trained) who produce horribly biased shuffles. Whole chunks of sequences from the previous deal can show up, either directly or spaced 2x or 4x. Try ordering a deck first, then shuffle it, then open each card and see if you notice any patterns.