According to probability, what is the best way to shuffle

throw the deck into the air

>>7977088
Casinos washboard theirs.

>>7977088
there is some theory that 7x of the overhand shuffles will be considered sufficiently random. i dont recall the name

>>7977111
nvm it was the riffle shuffle. and self checked

Build a determinism machine

>>7977088
>the best way
Leave it stacked.

>>7977111
checked and kekked

>>7977088
numberphile has some stuff on that

>probability
>computer science
Lay out every card face down on a grid, use a true random number generator to permutate the numbers 1-52, and then place the cards back into the deck in that order.

>>7977851
>true random number generator

no such a thing

>>7977116
but muh free will DX

>>7977858
A radioactive atom = a true random number generator

>>7977116
every machine is a determinism machine

>>7978043
prove it :^)

math newb here
A 52 factorial is the number of possible combinations a deck of cards can have?

Cut off the head of a chicken and have it pick a card from the pile of 52 you threw on the floor. Repeat this until there are no cards left.

>>7978130
what a waste of chickens

>>7978049
Yep.
n! Is the number of permutations of n objects.

Create a deck of all ace of spades.

There are an infinite amount of combos because they're all the same

>>7978238
Most retarded post of the thread award.

I think if you do the standard shuffle of just pulling out some cards and jamming them back in the deck, you have to do that around 5,000 to properly shuffle it.

Any way you want, there are 52! possible combinations of cards

>>7978241

>Most easily trolled in the thread award.

>>7977088
Get so drunk that you forget what cards are where. Actually, just cut the previous sentence off after the ninth word.

>>7978238
Create a deck with no cards. Infinite subsets.

>>7978329
>Most obviously counter-trolled in the thread

>>7978480
An unshuffled stack of blank cards and give every player a sharpies.

>>7978516
Ok done that, everyone has sharpie in pooper. Now what?

Knuth Shuffle

>>7978048
It may not be a true random generator, but it's close enough since we can't determine when a specific particle will decay.

>>7979650
Probably not perfect, but if you build it I will use it.

>>7978046
It's 2016, we alredy have quantum stuff you know

>>7979663
https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/

>>7978478
9.5/10 post