Talk:Perfect shuffle: Difference between revisions
Hmm... but.... to be somewhat true to the original task...
(→What to do?: +1 on third table of values.) |
(Hmm... but.... to be somewhat true to the original task...) |
||
Line 95:
::: +1 on using your third and last set of numbers (and the table). --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 08:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:::: Some other possible sequences include 2^(2 .. 15) - 2:
::::{| class="wikitable"
|-
! input ''(deck size)'' !! output ''(number of shuffles)''
|-
| 2 || 1
|-
| 6 || 4
|-
| 14 || 12
|-
| 30 || 28
|-
| 62 || 60
|-
| 126 || 100
|-
| 254 || 110
|-
| 510 || 508
|-
| 1022 || 340
|-
| 2046 || 204
|-
| 4094 || 4092
|-
| 8190 || 774
|-
| 16382 || 16380
|}
:::: And 3^(2 .. 14) -3:
::::{| class="wikitable"
|-
! input ''(deck size)'' !! output ''(number of shuffles)''
|-
| 24 || 11
|-
| 78 || 30
|-
| 240 || 119
|-
| 726 || 140
|-
| 2184 || 1044
|-
| 6558 || 3198
|-
| 19680 || 2980
|-
| 59046 || 168
|-
| 177144 || 43332
|-
| 531438 || 6776
|-
| 1594320 || 397380
|}
:::: That last value might be excessive, but looking at the original task, for a sequence of 9950 numbers I get a cycle length of 9948. So if we are being true to the original task description I imagine we should include something similar in the updated requirements? Or is the 9950 example already an unreasonable burden? --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 11:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
| |||