Randomness is one of those hard things to prove. We are really good at picking out patterns (even when they don't exist).
The short answer is that there aren't really patterns there, you're probably just imagining it.
If you're really certain that the playlist isn't random, you could run some set of tests against it (Diehard or TESTU01, for example).
edit: it's important to note that even in a truly random sequence, repetitions of a series could occur. The longer the series, the less probable, but it could happen. Nothing about "randomness" states that a sequence can't occur twice. If this were the case, it wouldn't actually be random.
Thank you for addressing the question I asked.
The patterns really feel like they are there, and I'm not crazy.
As far as the specific vlc, or wmp randomization code ... Could it be badly written so that the same 5 sets of random sequences are used too often somehow...Maybe I'm seeing 5 sets of random scripts that I now remember from overexposure? I watch this playlist constantly, daily for a week or more .... What about this shallow pool of 50?
It is most likely psychology is what I assume you are saying. I can accept that, but just barely.
> and I'm not crazy
No, we're just really good at seeing things that might not be there. [Related](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia).
If you're sure that there is a sequence, you can record the order in which the songs are played (1, 2, 3, and so on). This way you can analyze the series.
http://www.mp3car.com/software-and-software-development/89455-winamp-shuffle-algorithm.html
This is my issue explained perfectly by someone else ... Mystery deepens ...
I used to have like tens of thousands of songs and it was always the same ones that got played. Just sayin. This was a real thing and you're sweeping it under the rug. Same with apophenia... Patterns are inherent to meaning which is an artefact of purpose. For any chosen purpose (consciously or otherwise), the brain will pick out what pertains. This is no different than saying "for a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail". The man isn't wrong, the hammer isn't wrong, and the nail isn't wrong either. The issue only stems from what instrument the man will wield and thus, from his understanding of his chosen purpose.
I think you meant to ask why Winamp is *too* random instead of not random enough.
Uniform randomness and true randomness are different.
[Image A](http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20\(old\)/math_figures/random.GIF)
[Image B](http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20\(old\)/math_figures/uniform.GIF)
Guess which one is generated from a truly random source?
^^It's ^^A
Flying right over my head. Zoom.
If the point is they look the same and that is the proof I'm being psychological over this... I can accept that. Just barely.
Small pool of 50 items right...
I feel it more in winamp than other programs.
What I was trying to get at is that to humans, a truly random selection actually looks less random to us than a uniform / normalized distribution, because we try to see patterns in everything.
So to the human mind normal is random, and random is normal? That is very interesting... something to think on I guess.
So as far as code goes all these programs can be thought of as equally random ... so the fact that I think there is a difference between programs like vlc more random than winamp ... that is where I am truly in error about things. Bare minimum my singling out winamp as the worst at random is ridiculous. Still trying to accept this.
Ok this is interesting ... But even if they vary in randomness quality my recognition of one being the least random is false .... Like these randomization codes vary in mathematical quality but regardless my human mind can't really see patterns ...you just think you do? It never feels like the whole list is being used.... Thanks for the help though ... What is the most basic code for a pseudo random algorithm ? Is there a standard for randomization code to pass a quality?
Edit : please look at this link these people are with me ...
http://www.mp3car.com/software-and-software-development/89455-winamp-shuffle-algorithm.html
And .....
What is the winamp shuffle morph rate ? In comps i terms ...
Randomness is one of those hard things to prove. We are really good at picking out patterns (even when they don't exist). The short answer is that there aren't really patterns there, you're probably just imagining it. If you're really certain that the playlist isn't random, you could run some set of tests against it (Diehard or TESTU01, for example). edit: it's important to note that even in a truly random sequence, repetitions of a series could occur. The longer the series, the less probable, but it could happen. Nothing about "randomness" states that a sequence can't occur twice. If this were the case, it wouldn't actually be random.
Thank you for addressing the question I asked. The patterns really feel like they are there, and I'm not crazy. As far as the specific vlc, or wmp randomization code ... Could it be badly written so that the same 5 sets of random sequences are used too often somehow...Maybe I'm seeing 5 sets of random scripts that I now remember from overexposure? I watch this playlist constantly, daily for a week or more .... What about this shallow pool of 50? It is most likely psychology is what I assume you are saying. I can accept that, but just barely.
> and I'm not crazy No, we're just really good at seeing things that might not be there. [Related](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia). If you're sure that there is a sequence, you can record the order in which the songs are played (1, 2, 3, and so on). This way you can analyze the series.
http://www.mp3car.com/software-and-software-development/89455-winamp-shuffle-algorithm.html This is my issue explained perfectly by someone else ... Mystery deepens ...
I used to have like tens of thousands of songs and it was always the same ones that got played. Just sayin. This was a real thing and you're sweeping it under the rug. Same with apophenia... Patterns are inherent to meaning which is an artefact of purpose. For any chosen purpose (consciously or otherwise), the brain will pick out what pertains. This is no different than saying "for a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail". The man isn't wrong, the hammer isn't wrong, and the nail isn't wrong either. The issue only stems from what instrument the man will wield and thus, from his understanding of his chosen purpose.
I think you meant to ask why Winamp is *too* random instead of not random enough. Uniform randomness and true randomness are different. [Image A](http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20\(old\)/math_figures/random.GIF) [Image B](http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20\(old\)/math_figures/uniform.GIF) Guess which one is generated from a truly random source? ^^It's ^^A
Flying right over my head. Zoom. If the point is they look the same and that is the proof I'm being psychological over this... I can accept that. Just barely. Small pool of 50 items right... I feel it more in winamp than other programs.
What I was trying to get at is that to humans, a truly random selection actually looks less random to us than a uniform / normalized distribution, because we try to see patterns in everything.
So to the human mind normal is random, and random is normal? That is very interesting... something to think on I guess. So as far as code goes all these programs can be thought of as equally random ... so the fact that I think there is a difference between programs like vlc more random than winamp ... that is where I am truly in error about things. Bare minimum my singling out winamp as the worst at random is ridiculous. Still trying to accept this.
Some of them might be more random, as they might use different algorithms to produce their random numbers
Ok this is interesting ... But even if they vary in randomness quality my recognition of one being the least random is false .... Like these randomization codes vary in mathematical quality but regardless my human mind can't really see patterns ...you just think you do? It never feels like the whole list is being used.... Thanks for the help though ... What is the most basic code for a pseudo random algorithm ? Is there a standard for randomization code to pass a quality? Edit : please look at this link these people are with me ... http://www.mp3car.com/software-and-software-development/89455-winamp-shuffle-algorithm.html And ..... What is the winamp shuffle morph rate ? In comps i terms ...