Btw, does anyone know how many outcomes our Cube Explorer scrambling for 3x3x3 can produce?
I don't want to get into an argument about how good the various pseudo-RNGs we use are. That argument is really not fun, and there is nothing we can do to affect it anyway. The best we can try to do as cubers is to create an algorithm which is as close to random as possible given an ideal RNG, because then if the statistics turn out wrong the error will at least not be on our end.
Given a perfect RNG, though, picking a random cube position is really easy. I'm not sure what you're trying to say Stefan :|
Last edited by Stefan; 11-01-2009 at 08:08 PM.
This might be a bit of an overkill idea, but perhaps in the future we could generate official scrambles using data from random.org (which is literally random as opposed to pseudorandom). One section of the website will generate up to 10000 strings of length up to 20, so you could generate a bunch of those and then algorithmically transform them into scrambles. It's an interesting thought.
Pick 10^50 states perfectly randomly and hardcode scrambles of optimal length for them into the program. When asked for a scramble, the program perfectly randomly picks one of these scrambles.
Wouldn't you agree that this would result in short and high quality scrambles and would thus be very very good rather than "faulty", despite the severe limitation on the number of scrambles it can generate?