Exercise #3: Card Shuffling by Zoran Horvat @zoranh75
Problem Statement
There are N cards in the deck. Write the program which shuffles the deck so
that all cards are evenly distributed over multiple shuffles.
Example: Deck consists of four cards (1, 2, 3 and 4). One possible shuffling
is: 3, 1, 2, 4.
Keywords: Cards, shuffling, probability, FisherYates algorithm.
Problem Analysis
When speaking of shuffling a sequence of numbers, we can come to a difficulty
to explain what does the shuffling mean in terms of distinguishing "well
shuffled" from "poorly shuffled" sequence. Take two numbers: 1 and 2. Is the
sequence [1, 2] shuffled? Or is the sequence [2, 1] shuffled better? Don't be
tempted to believe that the latter one is, so to say, better than the previous.
Better stance for comparing sequences would be to ask the following question:
How often does the shuffling process produce sequence [1, 2] compared to
sequence [2, 1]? Basically, it is not the sequence that is considered shuffled
or not, it is the algorithm which produces proper or improper shuffling. So we
are now stepping aside and looking at the sequence of sequences produced by the
shuffling algorithm. It should be obvious that both sequences are legal when
shuffling two numbers. It only remains to see whether shuffling algorithm
produces these sequences in a sufficiently random manner.
For example, we could test whether both sequences appear equally often when
algorithm is run many times. Observe this sequence of sequences: [[1, 2], [2,
1], [1, 2], [2, 1], [1, 2], [2, 1]]. Each of the sequences appears three times
in six runs of the algorithm. Looks perfect, does it? But on the second look,
it appears that sequence [1, 2] always precedes sequence [2, 1]. Let's take a
look at Markov chains of sequences, i.e. to analyze how often transitions are
made between the two sequences produced on the output. The result goes like
this: Out of 5 transitions, we have [[1, 2], [2, 1]] occurring 3 times and [[2,
1], [1, 2]] occurring 2 times. There is no trace of transitions [[1, 2], [1,
2]] and [[2, 1], [2, 1]]. Like this algorithm is utterly unable to repeat any
of the sequences twice in a row, although truly random algorithm would have to
produce the same sequence on the output once on every two attempts on average.
So this algorithm doesn't seem to be a proper shuffling algorithm after all.
But now again, we could write an algorithm that produces this sequence of
sequences: [[1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 1], [2, 1], [1, 2], [1, 2], [2, 1], ... ]. That
algorithm would become perfect on both accounts: Appearances of particular
sequences and appearances of particular transitions. But still it's obviously
flawed as we always know the next sequence when previous two sequences are
known. And there goes the idea: If we take Markov chains of length 2, we would
quickly find that sequences [[1, 2], [2, 1], [1, 2]] and [[2, 1], [1, 2], [2,
1]] never appear on the output (sic!). So yes, the algorithm is flawed and it
can be demonstrated formally.
Now we have seen three criteria for analyzing the shuffling produced by an
arbitrary algorithm. We can devise an enhanced algorithm that performs
perfectly on all three criteria, but then still find out yet another test on
which it fails, namely to find one particular property of perfect shuffling
(whatever should it be) that the algorithm does not satisfy. So what should we
do? The answer is quite simple: Proper shuffling algorithm should not bother
about conditions and criteria that sequences should meet, but it should better
think of how to satisfy distribution of numbers within each particular
sequence. Should this distribution be "honest", or in formal terms: unbiased,
then we would rest assured that all sequences produced by such an algorithm
would natively be well shuffled. In literature, you will find definitions of
proper shuffling that range from trivial to very general, so general that they
cannot be fully applied in practice.
For example, consider this criterion: A sequence is random if it has every
property that is shared by all infinite sequences of independent samples of
random variables from the uniform distribution.
Well, this sounds as if it has embodied all the possibilities. Should the
theoretically perfect sequence have any property that it satisfies, then well
formed algorithmicallyproduced sequence should definitely pass the test of
that particular property. But alas, this definition is so broad that it cannot
possibly be applied in practice in its full extent. (On a related note, this
statement was given by Joel N. Franklin in a paper published in Mathematics of
Computation journal back in 1963.) To bridge the gap between theory and
practice, different authors have devised quite an impressive suite of tests
that can be applied to sequences in order to measure their "properness".
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss these tests. Further on we
will focus on devising an unbiased algorithm and hope for the best when its
output comes to the testing phase.
Solution
In the previous section we have identified pitfalls that threaten the shuffling
algorithms. Simple conclusion on how to avoid the pitfalls is to code a simple
unbiased algorithm. Whichever bias is introduced in order to avoid problems
regarding some sequence test, that bias will become the root cause to falling
another sequence test. So it's best to avoid them as a whole.
Shuffling algorithm that does not introduce any bias is the one that attempts
to place numbers to positions in the array in such way that for any given
position all the numbers are equally (and independently!) likely to be placed
on that position.
So let's start with the first position. We have N numbers awaiting to be
shuffled, we need to pick one to place it on position 1. If we pick any of them
at random and place it on position 1, then position 1 is filled in an unbiased
manner. This leaves us with N1 numbers remaining and N1 positions to be
filled. If first position was filled properly with this algorithm, then why not
to apply the same thinking to the second position? Let's pick up another random
number out of N1 and place it on the second position. Now we should stop at
this point to think again  is there any dependency induced between the two
numbers that were picked up? Does the first number somehow affect the selection
of the second one, because if it does then our algorithm is bound to fail. To
see whether shuffling of the first two positions is really random, we should
calculate probabilities that any numbers out of N are placed on the first two
positions. We start from the stance that random numbers generator used to pick
one out of N and then one out of N1 numbers is unbiased  this is actually a
fundamental requirement.
Probability that any number out of N is picked for the first position is 1/N.
Probability that any other number is picked up for the second position is then
determined by a sequence of two events: first, that this number was not picked
up in the first draw out of N and second, that the number was picked in the
second draw out of N1. We could write these two probabilities as following:
These expressions show probability that any given number occupies position p
after shuffling has taken place. Note that we could multiply the probabilities
for p=2 because these probabilities are independent  it shows how important is
the prerequisite that random number generator produces independent numbers.
Now we can extend the analysis to any particular position k between 1 and N: a
number is not picked in any of the steps before k, and then it is picked up in
step k when only Nk+1 numbers remain to be shuffled:
From this analysis we can conclude that the proposed algorithm indeed shuffles
numbers in an independent way  any number is equally likely to be placed on
any position in the output sequence and its placing there does not depend on
placing of any other number in the sequence.
Now that we have all the elements, we can write down the algorithm. Only one
small modification will be made, dictated by the technology  we will first
solve the number at position N, then at N1, and so on until position 1 is
resolved. The reason is quite simple  we're dealing with random number
generators that generate numbers between 0 and K for any given K, which then
saves one arithmetic operation that would be required to shift the range into
NK thru N. Here is the algorithm:
a[1..n]  array of numbers that should be shuffled
for i = n downto 2
begin
k = random number between 1 and i
Exchange a[i] and a[k]
end
That is all. Note that there is no need to shuffle the number at position 1 in
this implementation because that is the only number remaining  it is already
shuffled by definition, so to say. For further reference, this algorithm is
known as FisherYates shuffle. There are some other algorithms available, some
of them meeting other needs (e.g. to generate two arrays  nonshuffled and
shuffled), but this one presented above is quite sufficient in most of the
practical settings. It shuffles an array of numbers in time proportional to
length of the array and also shuffles it inplace so that no additional space
is needed.
Implementation
Implementation of the FisherYates shuffling algorithm is straightforward and
we will step into it without further deliberation.
using System;
namespace Cards
{
class Program
{
static void Shuffle(int[] cards)
{
for (int i = cards.Length  1; i > 0; i)
{
int index = _rnd.Next(i + 1);
int tmp = cards[i];
cards[i] = cards[index];
cards[index] = tmp;
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
while (true)
{
Console.Write("Enter number of cards (0 to quit): ");
int n = int.Parse(Console.ReadLine());
if (n <= 0)
break;
int[] cards = new int[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
cards[i] = i + 1;
Shuffle(cards);
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
Console.Write("{0,4}", cards[i]);
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
static Random _rnd = new Random();
}
}
Demonstration
Below is the output produced by the shuffling code.
Enter number of cards (0 to quit): 10
2 1 9 4 8 5 7 10 3 6
Enter number of cards (0 to quit): 5
5 4 1 3 2
Enter number of cards (0 to quit): 3
3 1 2
Enter number of cards (0 to quit): 14
10 7 8 4 1 13 14 12 9 6 11 3 5 2
Enter number of cards (0 to quit): 20
10 2 20 11 3 16 5 17 14 19 1 15 9 8 12 13 6 18 7 4
Enter number of cards (0 to quit): 0
On the first glance arrays indeed seem to be shuffled. But to be more certain
we would have to apply several randomness tests, which is full heartedly
suggested as a standalone exercise.
FollowUp Exercises
Now that we have completed an initial run of the algorithm and obtained a few
shuffled sequences out of it, the reader is suggested to turn attention to
analyzing the results produced.
 Write the code that statistically calculates probabilities that any particular
number occurs on any particular position in the shuffled array. Tell whether
results are satisfying. For more keen users  measure confidence intervals for
the distribution in order to formally evaluate the distribution.
 For a relatively small array lengths (e.g. up to 5), construct Markov chains of
length 1 and analyze whether all transitions between successive sequences
produced by the algorithm are equally likely. Once again, apply confidence
interval analysis to the result.
 Pick up the literature and find appropriate tests that could be applied to
evaluate the shuffling algorithm. Write code that applies them to results
produced by the algorithm.
See also:
Published: Mar 23, 2013; Modified: Apr 19, 2013
ZORAN HORVAT Zoran is software architect dedicated to clean design and CTO in a growing software company. Since 2014 Zoran is an author at Pluralsight where he is preparing a series of courses on objectoriented and functional design, design patterns, writing unit and integration tests and applying methods to improve code design and longterm maintainability. Follow him on Twitter @zoranh75 to receive updates and links to new articles. Watch Zoran's video courses at pluralsight.com (requires registration): Making Your C# Code More ObjectOriented This course will help leverage your conceptual understanding to produce proper objectoriented code, where objects will completely replace procedural code for the sake of flexibility and maintainability. More... Advanced Defensive Programming Techniques This course will lead you step by step through the process of developing defensive design practices, which can substitute common defensive coding, for the better of software design and implementation. More... Tactical Design Patterns in .NET: Creating Objects This course sheds light on issues that arise when implementing creational design patterns and then provides practical solutions that will make our code easier to write and more stable when running. More... Tactical Design Patterns in .NET: Managing Responsibilities Applying a design pattern to a realworld problem is not as straightforward as literature implicitly tells us. It is a more engaged process. This course gives an insight to tactical decisions we need to make when applying design patterns that have to do with separating and implementing class responsibilities. More... Tactical Design Patterns in .NET: Control Flow Improve your skills in writing simpler and safer code by applying coding practices and design patterns that are affecting control flow. More... Writing Highly Maintainable Unit Tests This course will teach you how to develop maintainable and sustainable tests as your production code grows and develops. More... Improving Testability Through Design This course tackles the issues of designing a complex application so that it can be covered with high quality tests. More... Share this article
