2011-04-29 21:27:50 8 Comments

I need to generate a uniformly random point within a circle of radius *R*.

I realize that by just picking a uniformly random angle in the interval [0 ... 2π), and uniformly random radius in the interval (0 ... *R*) I would end up with more points towards the center, since for two given radii, the points in the smaller radius will be closer to each other than for the points in the larger radius.

I found a blog entry on this over here but I don't understand his reasoning. I suppose it is correct, but **I would really like to understand from where he gets (2/ R^{2})×r and how he derives the final solution.**

**Update:** 7 years after posting this question I still hadn't received a satisfactory answer on the actual question regarding the math behind the square root algorithm. So I spent a day writing an answer myself. Link to my answer.

### Related Questions

#### Sponsored Content

#### 30 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Is floating point math broken?

**2009-02-25 21:39:02****Cato Johnston****335094**View**3119**Score**30**Answer- Tags: math language-agnostic floating-point floating-accuracy

#### 23 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Generate random number between two numbers in JavaScript

**2011-02-10 16:41:22****Mirgorod****1548305**View**1894**Score**23**Answer- Tags: javascript random

#### 67 Answered Questions

#### 32 Answered Questions

#### 34 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Generating random whole numbers in JavaScript in a specific range?

**2009-10-06 20:05:41****zacharyliu****1362000**View**2041**Score**34**Answer- Tags: javascript random integer

#### 31 Answered Questions

#### 42 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] How to generate a random alpha-numeric string?

**2008-09-03 02:58:43****Todd****1414558**View**1787**Score**42**Answer- Tags: java string random alphanumeric

#### 19 Answered Questions

#### 77 Answered Questions

### [SOLVED] Generate random string/characters in JavaScript

**2009-08-28 21:14:41****Tom Lehman****1550148**View**1919**Score**77**Answer- Tags: javascript string random

## 21 comments

## @aioobe 2018-06-07 16:45:36

## How to generate a random point within a circle of radius

R:(Assuming

`random()`

gives a value between 0 and 1 uniformly)If you want to convert this to Cartesian coordinates, you can do

## Why

`sqrt(random())`

?Let's look at the math that leads up to

`sqrt(random())`

. Assume for simplicity that we're working with the unit circle, i.e.R= 1.The average distance between points should be the same regardless of how far from the center we look. This means for example, that looking on the perimeter of a circle with circumference 2 we should find twice as many points as the number of points on the perimeter of a circle with circumference 1.

Since the circumference of a circle (2π

r) grows linearly withr, it follows that the number of random points should grow linearly withr. In other words, the desired probability density function (PDF) grows linearly. Since a PDF should have an area equal to 1 and the maximum radius is 1, we haveSo we know how the desired density of our random values should look like. Now:

How do we generate such a random value when all we have is a uniform random value between 0 and 1?We use a trick called inverse transform sampling

y=xSounds complicated? Let me insert a blockquote with a little side track that conveys the intuition:

…so, back to generating random radius values where our PDF equals 2

x.Step 1: Create the CDF:Since we're working with reals, the CDF is expressed as the integral of the PDF.

CDF(x) = ∫ 2x=x^{2}Step 2: Mirror the CDF along:y=xMathematically this boils down to swapping

xandyand solving fory:CDF:y=x^{2}Swap:

x=y^{2}Solve:

y= √xCDF^{-1}:y= √xStep 3: Apply the resulting function to a uniform value between 0 and 1CDF^{-1}(random()) = √random()Which is what we set out to derive :-)

## @Ivan Kovtun 2019-07-31 18:48:04

This algorithm can be used to efficiently generate points on the ring.

## @aioobe 2019-07-31 19:42:34

On the ring? Like with a fixed radius? Not sure if I understand your question, but if you have a fixed radius, you just need to randomize the angle.

## @Ivan Kovtun 2019-07-31 21:17:46

I tried to use simpler word "Ring" instead of Annulus - region bounded by two concentric circles. In this case rejection algorithm becomes not effective and first top algorithm is hard to generalize. And the corner case with one radius also is covered with your algorithm. We always generate radius as sqrt(random(min_radius^2, max_radius^2)) even when min_radius==max_radius.

## @aioobe 2019-07-31 21:26:06

Oh, nice! To be clear, when you say

`random(min_radius², max_radius²)`

, do you mean something equivalent to`random() * (max_radius² - min_radius²) + min_radius²`

, where`random()`

returns a uniform value between 0 and 1?## @Ivan Kovtun 2019-07-31 22:13:31

yes, that is exactly what I mean: radius = sqrt(random() * (max_radius² - min_radius²) + min_radius²).

## @Konrad Linkowski 2020-03-17 00:41:47

Used to create ring and it's work codepen.io/KonradLinkowski/pen/ExjLGxJ

## @Pommy 2017-07-08 20:44:28

Let ρ (radius) and φ (azimuth) be two random variables corresponding to polar coordinates of an arbitrary point inside the circle. If the points are uniformly distributed then what is the disribution function of ρ and φ?

For any r: 0 < r < R the probability of radius coordinate ρ to be less then r is

P[ρ < r] = P[point is within a circle of radius r] = S1 / S0 =(r/R)

^{2}Where S1 and S0 are the areas of circle of radius r and R respectively. So the CDF can be given as:

And PDF:

Note that for R=1 random variable sqrt(X) where X is uniform on [0, 1) has this exact CDF (because P[sqrt(X) < y] = P[x < y**2] = y**2 for 0 < y <= 1).

The distribution of φ is obviously uniform from 0 to 2*π. Now you can create random polar coordinates and convert them to Cartesian using trigonometric equations:

Can't resist to post python code for R=1.

You will get

## @Maik Klein 2018-07-13 21:45:09

You can also use your intuition.

The area of a circle is

`pi*r^2`

For

`r=1`

This give us an area of

`pi`

. Let us assume that we have some kind of function`f`

that would uniformly distrubute`N=10`

points inside a circle. The ratio here is`10 / pi`

Now we double the area and the number of points

For

`r=2`

and`N=20`

This gives an area of

`4pi`

and the ratio is now`20/4pi`

or`10/2pi`

. The ratio will get smaller and smaller the bigger the radius is, because its growth is quadratic and the`N`

scales linearly.To fix this we can just say

If you would generate a vector in polar coordinates like this

More points would land around the center.

`length`

is not uniformly distributed anymore, but the vector will now be uniformly distributed.## @ascanio 2011-04-29 22:08:39

I think that in this case using polar coordinates is a way of complicate the problem, it would be much easier if you pick random points into a square with sides of length 2R and then select the points

`(x,y)`

such that`x^2+y^2<=R^2`

.## @sigfpe 2011-04-29 23:18:26

You mean x^2+y^2<=R^2 I think.

## @Steve Bennett 2013-06-03 09:21:47

This is rejection sampling. It's ok, but does mean the calculation time varies somewhat, which could be an issue.

## @xaxxon 2016-02-24 01:28:13

All squares are 4-sided.

## @Ivan Kovtun 2019-07-31 18:12:54

This algorithm is be more efficient that anything that involves square roots or sin/cos computations. It rejects less than 21.5% points of the square.

## @AChervony 2018-06-04 06:40:21

Such a fun problem.

The rationale of the probability of a point being chosen lowering as distance from the axis origin increases is explained multiple times above. We account for that by taking the root of U[0,1]. Here's a general solution for a positive r in Python 3.

## @Steven Siew 2017-12-13 03:20:46

First we generate a cdf[x] which is

The probability that a point is less than distance x from the centre of the circle. Assume the circle has a radius of R.

obviously if x is zero then cdf[0] = 0

obviously if x is R then the cdf[R] = 1

obviously if x = r then the cdf[r] = (Pi r^2)/(Pi R^2)

This is because each "small area" on the circle has the same probability of being picked, So the probability is proportionally to the area in question. And the area given a distance x from the centre of the circle is Pi r^2

so cdf[x] = x^2/R^2 because the Pi cancel each other out

we have cdf[x]=x^2/R^2 where x goes from 0 to R

So we solve for x

We can now replace cdf with a random number from 0 to 1

Finally

we get the polar coordinates {0.601168 R, 311.915 deg}

## @bolec_kolec 2017-06-12 21:20:01

Solution in Java and the distribution example (2000 points)

based on previus solution https://stackoverflow.com/a/5838055/5224246 from @sigfpe

## @cheesefest 2017-01-16 15:04:02

I am still not sure about the exact '(2/R2)×r' but what is apparent is the number of points required to be distributed in given unit 'dr' i.e. increase in r will be proportional to r2 and not r.

check this way...number of points at some angle theta and between r (0.1r to 0.2r) i.e. fraction of the r and number of points between r (0.6r to 0.7r) would be equal if you use standard generation, since the difference is only 0.1r between two intervals. but since area covered between points (0.6r to 0.7r) will be much larger than area covered between 0.1r to 0.2r, the equal number of points will be sparsely spaced in larger area, this I assume you already know, So the function to generate the random points must not be linear but quadratic, (since number of points required to be distributed in given unit 'dr' i.e. increase in r will be proportional to r2 and not r), so in this case it will be inverse of quadratic, since the delta we have (0.1r) in both intervals must be square of some function so it can act as seed value for linear generation of points (since afterwords, this seed is used linearly in sin and cos function), so we know, dr must be quadratic value and to make this seed quadratic, we need to originate this values from square root of r not r itself, I hope this makes it little more clear.

## @aioobe 2017-01-16 15:06:34

You're the first one to reference Pythagoras theorem here. I would love if you could expand this with a figure or two, supporting your explanation. I have a hard time following as it stands now :-(

## @cheesefest 2017-01-17 06:52:27

@aioobe I have tried to rephrase the answer, I can add diagrams if you need:)

## @aioobe 2017-01-17 07:03:48

I understand why I can't spread it out linearly. What I don't understand here is the connection to Pythagoras or to sin/cos. Maybe diagrams could help me here.

## @cheesefest 2017-01-17 07:08:39

Pythagoras is my mistake, please forget about it, but hope you understood quadratic nature of function, the exact (2/R2)×r needs proof and I am unable to come up with any proof for this

## @krishnab 2014-03-04 02:21:00

Here is my Python code to generate

`num`

random points from a circle of radius`rad`

:## @user2508324 2016-12-16 16:07:51

Why not just

`r = np.sqrt(np.random.uniform(0.0, rad**2, num))`

?## @Libor 2016-01-28 15:50:56

Note the point density in proportional to inverse square of the radius, hence instead of picking

`r`

from`[0, r_max]`

, pick from`[0, r_max^2]`

, then compute your coordinates as:This will give you uniform point distribution on a disk.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DiskPointPicking.html

## @selalerer 2014-12-12 09:08:00

A programmer solution:

The bitmap is only necessary for the explanation of the logic. This is the code without the bitmap:

## @user502248 2014-07-15 09:05:30

The reason why the naive solution doesn't work is that it gives a higher probability density to the points closer to the circle center. In other words the circle that has radius r/2 has probability r/2 of getting a point selected in it, but it has area (number of points) pi*r^2/4.

Therefore we want a radius probability density to have the following property:

The probability of choosing a radius smaller or equal to a given r has to be proportional to the area of the circle with radius r. (because we want to have a uniform distribution on the points and larger areas mean more points)

In other words we want the probability of choosing a radius between [0,r] to be equal to its share of the overall area of the circle. The total circle area is pi*R^2, and the area of the circle with radius r is pi*r^2. Thus we would like the probability of choosing a radius between [0,r] to be (pi*r^2)/(pi*R^2) = r^2/R^2.

Now comes the math:

The probability of choosing a radius between [0,r] is the integral of p(r) dr from 0 to r (that's just because we add all the probabilities of the smaller radii). Thus we want integral(p(r)dr) = r^2/R^2. We can clearly see that R^2 is a constant, so all we need to do is figure out which p(r), when integrated would give us something like r^2. The answer is clearly r * constant. integral(r * constant dr) = r^2/2 * constant. This has to be equal to r^2/R^2, therefore constant = 2/R^2. Thus you have the probability distribution p(r) = r * 2/R^2

Note:Another more intuitive way to think about the problem is to imagine that you are trying to give each circle of radius r a probability density equal to the proportion of the number of points it has on its circumference. Thus a circle which has radius r will have 2 * pi * r "points" on its circumference. The total number of points is pi * R^2. Thus you should give the circle r a probability equal to (2 * pi * r) / (pi * R^2) = 2 * r/R^2. This is much easier to understand and more intuitive, but it's not quite as mathematically sound.## @xytor 2014-01-21 01:35:28

1) Choose a random X between -1 and 1.

2) Using the circle formula, calculate the maximum and minimum values of Y given that X and a radius of 1:

3) Choose a random Y between those extremes:

4) Incorporate your location and radius values in the final value:

## @Amadan 2015-06-12 04:40:47

Not uniform - the probability for [-1, 0] is much higher than for [0, 0], given that p([-1, Y]) = p([0, Y]), and there is only a single choice for [-1, Y] and many choices for [0, Y].

## @Dawood ibn Kareem 2017-08-02 19:57:44

This solution favours points towards the left and right sides of the circle. Points with x close to zero are under-represented. Not a uniform distribution at all.

## @arsaKasra 2013-05-14 21:09:59

I don't know if this question is still open for a new solution with all the answer already given, but I happened to have faced exactly the same question myself. I tried to "reason" with myself for a solution, and I found one. It might be the same thing as some have already suggested here, but anyway here it is:

in order for two elements of the circle's surface to be equal, assuming equal dr's, we must have dtheta1/dtheta2 = r2/r1. Writing expression of the probability for that element as P(r, theta) = P{ r1< r< r1 + dr, theta1< theta< theta + dtheta1} = f(r,theta)*dr*dtheta1, and setting the two probabilities (for r1 and r2) equal, we arrive to (assuming r and theta are independent) f(r1)/r1 = f(r2)/r2 = constant, which gives f(r) = c*r. And the rest, determining the constant c follows from the condition on f(r) being a PDF.

## @aioobe 2013-06-04 09:54:07

Interesting approach to start with dtheta1/dtheta2 = r2/r1. Could you elaborate on how you came up with that equation?

## @arsaKasra 2013-06-04 10:24:52

As others have mentioned (honk, for example), a differential element of the surface of a circle is given as r

drdtheta, so if we assume r1 = r2, then we will have dr1*dtheta1 = dr2*dtheta2 and the rest follows.## @sigfpe 2011-04-29 22:33:25

Let's approach this like Archimedes would have.

How can we generate a point uniformly in a triangle ABC, where |AB|=|BC|? Let's make this easier by extending to a parallelogram ABCD. It's easy to generate points uniformly in ABCD. We uniformly pick a random point X on AB and Y on BC and choose Z such that XBYZ is a parallelogram. To get a uniformly chosen point in the original triangle we just fold any points that appear in ADC back down to ABC along AC.

Now consider a circle. In the limit we can think of it as infinitely many isoceles triangles ABC with B at the origin and A and C on the circumference vanishingly close to each other. We can pick one of these triangles simply by picking an angle theta. So we now need to generate a distance from the center by picking a point in the sliver ABC. Again, extend to ABCD, where D is now twice the radius from the circle center.

Picking a random point in ABCD is easy using the above method. Pick a random point on AB. Uniformly pick a random point on BC. Ie. pick a pair of random numbers x and y uniformly on [0,R] giving distances from the center. Our triangle is a thin sliver so AB and BC are essentially parallel. So the point Z is simply a distance x+y from the origin. If x+y>R we fold back down.

Here's the complete algorithm for R=1. I hope you agree it's pretty simple. It uses trig, but you can give a guarantee on how long it'll take, and how many

`random()`

calls it needs, unlike rejection sampling.Here it is in Mathematica.

## @sigfpe 2011-04-29 23:22:53

@Karelzarath I like the counterintuitive notion of an infinitely thin triangle that's still wider at one end than the other :-) It gets the right answer.

## @Markus Jarderot 2011-04-30 00:09:28

Nice. This avoids calculating the square root.

## @finnw 2011-04-30 09:52:22

I think you mean isosceles triangles, not equilateral?

## @sigfpe 2011-04-30 14:07:38

@finnw Yes! Such a long time ago since I did classical geometry :-)

## @hammar 2011-05-04 16:34:55

Just out of curiosity: Does this generalize nicely to higher dimensions (e.g. a three-dimensional sphere)?

## @sigfpe 2011-05-04 17:52:47

@hammar Not sure it's generalizes well to n dimensions. But to 3d you can use another result by Archimedes! Use the "hat-box" theorem to generate a point on the cylinder (easy!) and then map it back to the sphere. That gives a direction. Now use

`random()+random()+random()`

with some more complex folding (ie. a 6-way fold of an infinitesimally thin parallelepiped to a terahedron). Not convinced this is a good method though.## @JiminP 2011-05-15 15:50:48

I thought 1 min to figure out difference between random()+random() and 2*random()... I'm so stupid :/

## @Tharwen 2012-10-20 03:13:15

Couldn't you just halve r and not bother folding the points down?

## @sigfpe 2012-10-21 22:28:52

@Tharwen Notice how in a circle there are more points at radius 0.9-1.0 than at radius 0.0-0.1. random()+random() generates radii more likely to be around 1.0 but lie in the range 0.0-2.0. When folded down they're more likely to be around 1.0 and always in the range 0.0-1.0. What's more, it's exactly the proportion needed in the first sentence of this comment. Just halving produces more numbers around the 0.5 mark and that would be wrong.

## @Tharwen 2012-10-21 23:40:37

@sigfpe Oh, of course. I see it now. OK, another question: why use

`random() + random()`

instead of`2 * random()`

?## @sigfpe 2012-10-22 20:30:54

@Tharwen Try using both schemes to generate random numbers and see what you get. 2*random() gives numbers uniformly distributed in the range 0 to 2. random()+random() gives you numbers in the range 0 to 2 but there will (usually) be more numbers near 1.0 than near 0.0 or 2.0. It's like how rolling two dice and summing is more likely to give 7 than any other number.

## @sigfpe 2012-10-23 00:17:23

@Tharwen Probability can be like that. Write the code and play with the alternatives you ask about. :-)

## @Ricardo Sanchez-Saez 2012-10-24 17:33:05

Can this method be easily extended to get an uniform random point in the area inside a circle of radius R1 but outside a circle of radius R2, where R1 > R2 and both circles are centered at the same point? (Using rejection sampling is easy enough, I mean without it).

## @Ricardo Sanchez-Saez 2012-10-25 08:50:36

I posted my comment as a standalone question, in case anybody feels like answering it: stackoverflow.com/questions/13064912/…

## @Eyal 2013-09-23 06:12:27

If you are writing software to generate many random points, do not use this algorithm. Rejection sampling in a square uses fewer calls to random(), which is likely to be the most expensive part of this algorithm.

## @spex 2014-08-27 20:29:39

It doesn't seem like your formula matches your story. They seem like two different solutions, with one using a parallelogram method and the other using a dice roll method.

## @xaxxon 2016-02-24 01:57:37

Why is folding down random()+random() the correct distribution?

## @xaxxon 2016-02-24 02:37:54

Looking around, a lot of people have suggested that r=sqrt[random[]]; I plotted both and they both look right. i.imgur.com/zIgqbN2.png i.imgur.com/4bBe7WF.png I also realized I can't afford mathematica.

## @dgnuff 2017-07-18 23:34:28

Ugh. No MathJax here. Oh well. Something about this is bothering me a little. Consider the limit as r tends to 1 of dp/dr where p is the probability of getting radius r. Since random() + random() seems like it should have a continuous first derivative at 1, and is also symmetric about 1, that implies the above limit is 0. Yet this limit is most definitely not zero if we use r = sqrt(random()). Thoughts?

## @Ruslan 2018-06-08 14:26:14

@xaxxon This can be explained from the fact that sum of two random numbers uniformly-distributed on [0,1] has Irwin–Hall distribution. This distribution (for two numbers in the sum) has triangular shape with the apex at x=1. It is symmetric with respect to x=1, so if we fold values >1 back, their distribution will be the same as the distribution of values ≤1. Overall result is the distribution, linearly growing on the interval of [0,1].

## @Chris A. 2011-04-29 21:41:32

Think about it this way. If you have a rectangle where one axis is radius and one is angle, and you take the points inside this rectangle that are near radius 0. These will all fall very close to the origin (that is close together on the circle.) However, the points near radius R, these will all fall near the edge of the circle (that is, far apart from each other.)

This might give you some idea of why you are getting this behavior.

The factor that's derived on that link tells you how much corresponding area in the rectangle needs to be adjusted to not depend on the radius once it's mapped to the circle.

Edit: So what he writes in the link you share is, "That’s easy enough to do by calculating the inverse of the cumulative distribution, and we get for r:".

The basic premise is here that you can create a variable with a desired distribution from a uniform by mapping the uniform by the inverse function of the cumulative distribution function of the desired probability density function. Why? Just take it for granted for now, but this is a fact.

Here's my somehwat intuitive explanation of the math. The density function f(r) with respect to r has to be proportional to r itself. Understanding this fact is part of any basic calculus books. See sections on polar area elements. Some other posters have mentioned this.

So we'll call it f(r) = C*r;

This turns out to be most of the work. Now, since f(r) should be a probability density, you can easily see that by integrating f(r) over the interval (0,R) you get that C = 2/R^2 (this is an exercise for the reader.)

Thus, f(r) = 2*r/R^2

OK, so that's how you get the formula in the link.

Then, the final part is going from the uniform random variable u in (0,1) you must map by the inverse function of the cumulative distribution function from this desired density f(r). To understand why this is the case you need to find an advanced probability text like Papoulis probably (or derive it yourself.)

Integrating f(r) you get F(r) = r^2/R^2

To find the inverse function of this you set u = r^2/R^2 and then solve for r, which gives you r = R * sqrt(u)

This totally makes sense intuitively too, u = 0 should map to r = 0. Also, u = 1 shoudl map to r = R. Also, it goes by the square root function, which makes sense and matches the link.

## @btilly 2011-04-30 02:07:28

Here is a fast and simple solution.

Pick two random numbers in the range (0, 1), namely

`a`

and`b`

. If`b < a`

, swap them. Your point is`(b*R*cos(2*pi*a/b), b*R*sin(2*pi*a/b))`

.You can think about this solution as follows. If you took the circle, cut it, then straightened it out, you'd get a right-angled triangle. Scale that triangle down, and you'd have a triangle from

`(0, 0)`

to`(1, 0)`

to`(1, 1)`

and back again to`(0, 0)`

. All of these transformations change the density uniformly. What you've done is uniformly picked a random point in the triangle and reversed the process to get a point in the circle.## @Greg Zaal 2014-05-27 17:48:49

This, for some reason, gives me much more uniform distribution than the accepted answer, though I did need to divide the coordinate by the radius, otherwise it's inside a circle of R^2

## @Tony Ceralva 2014-06-09 00:24:12

Thanks, this is your code in Java, maybe someone will find it useful: float random1 = MathUtils.random(); float random2 = MathUtils.random(); float randomXPoint = random2*radius

MathUtils.cos(MathUtils.PI2*random1/random2); float randomYPoint = random2*radiusMathUtils.sin(MathUtils.PI2*random1/random2);## @Guilherme 2015-01-23 20:44:36

very good! I like the idea of more probability for centralize the points, so if we don't swap when

`b < a`

we can achieve this! e.g. in javascript jsfiddle.net/b0sb5ogL/1## @bolec_kolec 2017-06-12 20:43:41

I think your solution is bad. It's not giving uniformly results. Check this screenshot prntscr.com/fizxgc

## @bolec_kolec 2017-06-12 20:51:36

@TonyCeralva Also I checked your code and It seems that it's not uniform. Please check my chart prntscr.com/fj0162 There too many dots near (0,0)

## @btilly 2017-06-12 21:04:28

@bolec_kolec I have no idea what code you ran. But jsfiddle.net/7891b51f is my solution, as written by Guilherme, with

`uniform`

passed so that it would be. Run multiple times. It works fine.## @bolec_kolec 2017-06-12 21:34:41

@btilly You are right. I fixed my code. There is a correct solution in Java: double a = rand.nextDouble(); double b = rand.nextDouble(); if (b < a) { double temp = b; b = a; a = temp; } double newPointX = b * Math.cos(2 * Math.PI * a / b); double newPointY = b * Math.sin(2 * Math.PI * a / b);

## @kec 2018-03-14 17:27:15

Can you explain a bit more how to cut the circle and straighten it out?

## @Marcin Mrugas 2019-10-02 15:26:21

I believe that @btilly was describing cutting as cut from edge to center, which will result in creating two new edges. And then this edges should be rotated to become perpendicular. Last thing is to straighten last curve which will become hypotenuse of new triangle.

## @Benjamin Bannier 2011-04-29 21:45:18

The area element in a circle is dA=rdr*dphi. That extra factor r destroyed your idea to randomly choose a r and phi. While phi is distributed flat, r is not, but flat in 1/r (i.e. you are more likely to hit the boundary than "the bull's eye").

So to generate points evenly distributed over the circle pick phi from a flat distribution and r from a 1/r distribution.

Alternatively use the Monte Carlo method proposed by Mehrdad.

EDITTo pick a random r flat in 1/r you could pick a random x from the interval [1/R, infinity] and calculate r=1/x. r is then distributed flat in 1/r.

To calculate a random phi pick a random x from the interval [0, 1] and calculate phi=2*pi*x.

## @aioobe 2011-04-29 21:53:03

How exactly do I pick an

rfrom"a 1/r distribution"?## @Marino Šimić 2011-04-29 22:11:06

I used once this method: This may be totally unoptimized (ie it uses an array of point so its unusable for big circles) but gives random distribution enough. You could skip the creation of the matrix and draw directly if you wish to. The method is to randomize all points in a rectangle that fall inside the circle.

## @Richard 2014-07-30 23:57:47

Distributions are not "random enough". They either are or not random for a given definition of random. Your answer is oblique: you don't comment your code nor explain how you arrive at it. Oblique answers are difficult to follow and harder to trust.

## @Aryabhatta 2011-04-29 21:48:22

It really depends on what you mean by 'uniformly random'. This is a subtle point and you can read more about it on the wiki page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_paradox_%28probability%29, where the same problem, giving different interpretations to 'uniformly random' gives different answers!

Depending on how you choose the points, the distribution could vary, even though they are uniformly random in

somesense.It seems like the blog entry is trying to make it uniformly random in the following sense: If you take a sub-circle of the circle, with the same center, then the probability that the point falls in that region is proportional to the area of the region. That, I believe, is attempting to follow the now standard interpretation of 'uniformly random' for 2D regions with areas defined on them: probability of a point falling in any region (with area well defined) is proportional to the area of that region.

## @ShreevatsaR 2011-04-29 22:01:04

Or rather, the probability that the point falls in

anyarbitrary region is proportional to the area of the region — assuming that the region has an area.## @Aryabhatta 2011-04-29 22:05:00

@Shree: Correct, which is what I meant to imply by my statement in parenthesis. I will make it clearer, thanks. btw, about the blog, there was no real proof that arbitrary areas give proportional probabilities, hence I chose to phrase it that way.

## @recursive 2011-04-29 21:34:44

There is a linear relationship between the radius and the number of points "near" that radius, so he needs to use a radius distribution that is also makes the number of data points near a radius

`r`

proportional to`r`

.