Randomly Selected vs. Evenly Distributed

If you need a greater randomness you can use an alternate random number algorithm (mx7):

randRange(1,10,'SHA1PRNG')

The docs even state: "SHA1PRNG: generates a number using the Sun Java SHA1PRNG algorithm. This algorithm provides greater randomness than the default algorithm"

http://livedocs.adobe.com/coldfusion/7/htmldocs/00000605.htm

here's something to get you started -
http://www.coldfusionjedi.com/index.cfm/2006/8/16/ColdFusion-101-Picking-a-random-image-2

I think the way I've handled it previously is to keep a running tab of all of the "randomly" selected values. Then run a comparison of the newly selected items, check them against the table, rinse-and-repeat until you reach however many you are looking for. As you get more data in there, it can slow the process down a bit though (as it's running more and more comparisons), but as it's a scheduled task and I'll never see it, I've never worried *too* much about the slowdown.

If you're using SQL, you could see if that returns a more evenly distributed random result
http://www.sqlteam.com/article/using-newid-to-randomly-sort-records

While on the topic of randomness. If you're trying to retrieve random items from a database and you're using MS SQL, the NewID() function is a good method of doing it.

If you want all:
SELECT ID
FROM FOO
ORDER BY NEWID()

If you only need (n):
SELECT TOP 1 ID
FROM FOO
ORDER BY NEWID()

Tecnhically speaking, there's no such thing as random in a computer. There are only calculations based on values that are difficult for a human to predict.

In fact, there are lines of thought that suggest that randomness is a myth in any scenario, computed or not. i.e. everything is caused by something, so there's nothing that's truly random - only things that appear to be random, because we cannot readily discern the cause.

But you're right in that randomness is not equivalent to even distribution, though as the number or iterations approaches infinity, they begin to resemble each other.

P.S. I'm not really this high-brow. I'm just having a moment.

"In fact, there are lines of thought that suggest that randomness is a myth in any scenario, computed or not. i.e. everything is caused by something, so there's nothing that's truly random - only things that appear to be random, because we cannot readily discern the cause."

Maybe, until you look close enough that you are in the size range where quantum physics becomes dominant, where things are truly random to the point of being completely unpredictable no matter how good a measurement is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator has a good summary.

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpDckbqhpW8

Computer generated randomness is not random, but rather Pseudorandom Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom:

"A pseudorandom process is a process that appears random but is not. Pseudorandom sequences typically exhibit statistical randomness while being generated by an entirely deterministic causal process. Such a process is easier to produce than a genuine random one, and has the benefit that it can be used again and again to produce exactly the same numbers, useful for testing and fixing software.

To date there is no known method to produce true randomness, because due to the very nature of randomness, any factor determining the outcome would mean that it is not random at all. The random number generation functions provided in many software packages are pseudorandom."

Quoting wikipedia because its convenient, not because its an authority on the subject.

I think there's a whole fascinating discussion to be had on whether or not randomness exists, though that's not the intent of the thread.

More relevant is the notion of testing for randomness, which - by any definition - is impossible. If randomness means unpredictability, than any test that PREDICTS the outcome, even the nature of the outcome - more proves unrandomness than randomness. Going with the analogy of a million monkeys on a million typewriters eventually producing the works of shakespeare. That outcome - the works of shakespeare -would undoubtedly fail any tests for randomness, even though they were "randomly" generated.

Watchout! The gravitaional pull is pulling me in!

I once saw an episode of Numb3ers where the genius character was demonstrating randomness. He asked a group of 10 or so people to take up random positions in the room. Once everyone did, he pointed out that it was not random at all. Everyone was about the same distance from each other (evenly distributed), and said that if their positions were truly random you might have clusters of 2 or three people occupying the same area, or close to it.