in reply to Several simple (simplistic?) notes
in thread Stable mixing of 2 arrays into a 3rd

First, for the original problem, there's the trivial solution of (@t1, @t2) because "fairness is not a consideration".

Nice:) Of course, generally speaking random implies unpredictable. The fairness bit was to indicate that not all possible sequences need have the same chance of being produced--but it should at least be possible that every sequence could be produced.

enumerate all binary numbers from zero to 2 ** size of one of the lists

I'm not sure I understand this? If we start with the trivial case of 2 lists of 2 elements. 2**2 = 4; enumerate the binary digits from 0 .. 4 gives:

000 001 010 011 100

Five numbers; 15 digits; 5 '1's and 10 '0's.

I can't see how that helps to produce the 6 sequences?

P:\test>395791 -N=2 1 2 a b 1 a 2 b 1 a b 2 a 1 2 b a 1 b 2 a b 1 2 6

Examine what is said, not who speaks.
"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Several simple (simplistic?) notes
by gaal (Parson) on Oct 02, 2004 at 08:54 UTC
    Ah, right, that was a bad idea. I really meant 0 .. (2 ** (size * 2) - 1), but then there are many, many false candidates, and even too many good ones.

    For two lists of a hundred elements, we'd have to iterate over 2 ** 200 elements, which is a little too much :)

    /me goes off to try something else