->   What you said above proves my point. A routine that does not
-> statistically average out over time so that every outcome appears
-> an equal number of times is better than a predictable routine where
-> each outcome comes out an equal number of times over time. Think
-> about that.
Well, this is a strange point! The conventional definition of "random"
includes the concept that non-degenerate outcomes should be equally
probable, which means that they should come up equally frequently over a
long term. (The business about "non-degenerate" has to do with
indistinguishable outcomes that can be reached in several ways. It's not
an important factor in our discussion.) You are suggesting that it is
somehow better for this equi-probability *not* to occur. Hmmm.... I
guess you wouldn't take this so far as to say that the best "randomizer"
is one that always produces the exact same order every time, for example
the same order as the one in which the characters (or other things) were
originally in! Such a routine would have the advantage of being
extremely easy to write!
There are plenty of realistic applications in which any (known)
deviation from equi-probability could have serious consequences. For
example, the pay-outs in various gambling games are calculated so the
house makes a long term profit, which makes casinos profitable. If
equi-probability were not to occur in whatever "randomizing" mechanism
is involved, and if the players were to know which outcomes were most
probable, they could make a consistent profit, and drive the house into
bankruptcy.
There are some legal consequence, too. For example, cars are supposed to
be picked at random for certain kinds of spot-checks by police - for the
drivers' alcohol levels, etc.. If it could be shown that the randomizer
picks some cars more often than others, there would be legal cause to
nullify huge numbers of convictions. This could be chaotic!
Anyway, if you are agreeing that your character shuffling routine *does*
produce some outcomes more often than others, defying the conventional
idea of randomness, and that mine does not, then I think we are in
sufficient agreement for us to stop cluttering this conference with this
discussion. Feel free to send me private netmail, if you want, at
1:250/710.
                             dow
--- PCBoard (R) v15.3 (OS/2) 5
---------------