probability-statistics / Markov chain mixing times; card shuffling

Optimal-order mixing of the Thorp shuffle on 2d2^d cards: is the mixing time O(log⁡n)O(\log n)?

Principal Theorem 1.1: for n=2dn=2^d, ∥qd∗1600d−Un∥TV→0\|q_d^{*1600d}-U_n\|_{TV}\to0 as d→∞d\to\infty, uniformly over initial decks, and ∥qd∗t−Un∥TV≥1−2tn/2/n!\|q_d^{*t}-U_n\|_{TV}\ge1-2^{tn/2}/n!, so tmix(d)≥2d−O(1)t_{mix}(d)\ge2d-O(1) and tmix(d)=Θ(d)t_{mix}(d)=\Theta(d). Companions give alternative proofs with other constants and the supporting Fourier and coordinate-sweep estimates. The constant 1600 is not claimed sharp; no cutoff or leading constant is determined, and the optimal-order question for general even deck sizes is explicitly not addressed.

24Significance / 100
1Frontier events
0Verification tasks
0Recorded attempts

Temporal state

Current frontier

No reconciled state yet.

Append-only history

Frontier timeline

probability-statisticsSep 26, 2026Significance 24/100Registry: lean checked

Optimal-order mixing of the Thorp shuffle on 2d2^d cards: is the mixing time O(log⁡n)O(\log n)?

Prior state unknown→proved

Principal Theorem 1.1: for n=2dn=2^d, ∥qd∗1600d−Un∥TV→0\|q_d^{*1600d}-U_n\|_{TV}\to0 as d→∞d\to\infty, uniformly over initial decks, and ∥qd∗t−Un∥TV≥1−2tn/2/n!\|q_d^{*t}-U_n\|_{TV}\ge1-2^{tn/2}/n!, so tmix(d)≥2d−O(1)t_{mix}(d)\ge2d-O(1) and tmix(d)=Θ(d)t_{mix}(d)=\Theta(d). Companions give alternative proofs with other constants and the supporting Fourier and coordinate-sweep estimates. The constant 1600 is not claimed sharp; no cutoff or leading constant is determined, and t…

SourceReplayReproducedFormal proofStatement auditExternal checkExpert reviewPeer review

Research memory

Claims and attempts

Scoped claims

Source authenticated

Principal Theorem 1.1: for n=2dn=2^d, ∥qd∗1600d−Un∥TV→0\|q_d^{*1600d}-U_n\|_{TV}\to0 as d→∞d\to\infty, uniformly over initial decks, and ∥qd∗t−Un∥TV≥1−2tn/2/n!\|q_d^{*t}-U_n\|_{TV}\ge1-2^{tn/2}/n!, so tmix(d)≥2d−O(1)t_{mix}(d)\ge2d-O(1) and tmix(d)=Θ(d)t_{mix}(d)=\Theta(d). Companions give alternative proofs with other constants and the supporting Fourier and coordinate-sweep estimates. The constant 1600 is not claimed sharp; no cutoff or leading constant is determined, and the optimal-order question for general even deck sizes is explicitly not addressed.

Principal Theorem 1.1: for n=2dn=2^d, ∥qd∗1600d−Un∥TV→0\|q_d^{*1600d}-U_n\|_{TV}\to0 as d→∞d\to\infty, uniformly over initial decks, and ∥qd∗t−Un∥TV≥1−2tn/2/n!\|q_d^{*t}-U_n\|_{TV}\ge1-2^{tn/2}/n!, so tmix(d)≥2d−O(1)t_{mix}(d)\ge2d-O(1) and tmix(d)=Θ(d)t_{mix}(d)=\Theta(d). Companions give alternative proofs with other constants and the supporting Fourier and coordinate-sweep estimates. The constant 1600 is not claimed sharp; no cutoff or leading constant is determined, and the optimal-order question for general even deck sizes is explicitly not addressed.

Recorded attempts

Evidence graph

Connected research record