Expose nondeterminism resulting from the OS thread scheduler

Perl 6, 27 bytes

await map {start .say},^100

Explanation:

      map {          },^100  # Iterate over the range 0..99, and for each of number:
           start             # Send the following task to a thread pool of OS threads:
                 .say        # Print the number, followed by a newline.
await                        # Wait until all tasks have completed.

I hope this satisfies the task. (If not, please let me know).

Testing:

The shell script I used to test sufficient nondeterminism:

#!/usr/bin/bash
for i in {1..10}; do
    set=""
    for j in {1..10}; do
        set="${set}$(perl6 nondet.p6 | tr '\n' ',')\n"
    done
    permutations="$(echo -e "$set" | head -n -1 | sort | uniq | wc -l)"
    echo -n "$permutations "
done

For me, this outputs:

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 

Setup instructions:

I ran the test with an up-to-date Rakudo Perl 6 on 64bit Linux, though I guess it'll work on other platforms.

The Rakudo download page has setup instructions. I compiled mine from git like this:

git clone [email protected]:rakudo/rakudo.git
cd rakudo
perl Configure.pl --gen-moar --make-install
export PATH="$(pwd)/install/bin/:$PATH"

Try it online:

Or just test it online, using this Try It Online link provided by @b2gills. I checked a few runs and got a different order each time, but haven't had the patience to run it 100 times through that online interface.

bash, 32 28 bytes

for i in {0..99};{ echo $i&}

I ran this 100 times and got 100 different results.

Edit: Saved 4 bytes thanks to @DigitalTrauma.

PowerShell, 54 46 44 39 bytes

workflow p{foreach -p($i in 0..99){$i}}

PowerShell Workflows are not supported in TIO, so you can't try it there. Should work great on your Windows 10 machine though :)

Defines a function p which will output the list of numbers when invoked.

Timing

A single run reliably runs in about 600ms on my machine. The 100 tests defined below finish in under 2 minutes.

Testing

Here's complete code to test it:

workflow p{foreach -p($i in 0..99){$i}}
#workflow p{foreach($i in 0..99){$i}}
# uncomment above to prove testing methodology does detect duplicates

1..10 | % {
    $set = $_
    Write-Host "Set $set of 10"
    1..10 | % -b {
        $runs = @()
    } -p {
        $run = $_
        Write-Host "-- Run $run of 10 in set $set"
        $runs += "$(p)"
    } -e {
        Write-Host "-- There were $(10-($runs|Get-Unique).Count) duplicate runs in set $set"
    }
}

Output on my machine:

Set 1 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 1
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 1
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 1
Set 2 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 2
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 2
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 2
Set 3 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 3
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 3
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 3
Set 4 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 4
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 4
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 4
Set 5 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 5
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 5
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 5
Set 6 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 6
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 6
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 6
Set 7 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 7
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 7
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 7
Set 8 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 8
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 8
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 8
Set 9 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 9
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 9
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 9
Set 10 of 10
-- Run 1 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 2 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 3 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 4 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 5 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 6 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 7 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 8 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 9 of 10 in set 10
-- Run 10 of 10 in set 10
-- There were 0 duplicate runs in set 10