Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #92295
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Testing random |
| Date | 2015-06-07 21:41 +0200 |
| Organization | PointedEars Software (PES) |
| Message-ID | <3006491.U2VKTQuU5p@PointedEars.de> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <mailman.257.1433694323.13271.python-list@python.org> <1656356.OjxBvjpJ5d@PointedEars.de> <mailman.259.1433695485.13271.python-list@python.org> <5515034.V7dcXEWAvK@PointedEars.de> <mailman.271.1433703133.13271.python-list@python.org> |
Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> If the set to choose from is integer numbers from 1 to 9, then *each* of >> those sequences has *the same* probability (1∕9)¹¹ ≈ 3.1866355 × 10⁻¹¹. >> >> AISB, those are *independent* events; the number of occurrences of an >> outcome before *does not matter* for the probability of the next one. >> And so the probability of getting a certain number does _not_ change >> depending on the number of times you repeat the experiment. It is always >> the same; in this example, it is always 1∕9. And the probability of >> _not_ getting certain number is always the same; in this example, it is >> always 1 − 1∕9 = 8∕9. > > Yes, the probability of not getting a certain number is always 8/9... > but the probability of not getting that number for an entire sequence > is 8/9 raised to the power of the length of the sequence As it is for getting every number at least once, or only two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight of them. Each number has the probability of 1∕9 of being drawn, and for a sequence of n numbers drawn, the probability is (1∕9)ⁿ, *no matter* which numbers are in it. > because they are independent events that must *all* happen. […] As I already pointed out, your reasoning is purely *intuitive*, _not_ based on (correct) math, and (therefore) flawed. And intuition lets you down here. The correct, mathematical reasoning is: *Because* the events are *independent*, the probability of the sequence does not change depending on the number of occurrences of an event (outcome of a draw). That all numbers occur is _not_ more likely than that only one number occurs, or two, three, and so on. And that does _not_ depend on how many draws you take as there is an infinite reservoir for each number. I do not think I can explain it to you better, and I am not going to waste my precious free time to repeat myself. Follow the reference I gave. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Testing random Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-06-07 08:27 +0200
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 12:40 +0200
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-07 21:51 +1000
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 17:51 +0200
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 02:25 +1000
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 18:36 +0200
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 02:44 +1000
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 20:23 +0200
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 04:52 +1000
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 21:41 +0200
Re: Testing random Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2015-06-07 22:08 +0300
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 21:29 +0200
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-07 15:44 -0400
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 22:09 +0200
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-07 16:41 -0400
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 22:59 +0200
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-08 11:26 +1000
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-07 21:34 -0400
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 11:42 +1000
Re: Testing random MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-06-08 02:49 +0100
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-07 21:57 -0400
Re: Testing random Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2015-06-08 10:40 +0300
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-10 19:03 +0200
Re: Testing random sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2015-06-10 10:52 -0700
Re: Testing random Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2015-06-10 23:00 +0300
Re: Testing random Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-06-10 12:02 -0600
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-12 23:32 +0200
Re: Testing random alister <alister.nospam.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2015-06-12 21:46 +0000
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-12 17:52 -0400
Re: Testing random Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-06-12 16:00 -0600
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-13 00:09 +0200
Re: Testing random sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2015-06-12 15:55 -0700
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-12 18:57 -0400
Re: Testing random Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-13 08:53 +0100
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-10 14:26 -0400
Re: Testing random Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-06-07 14:21 -0700
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-16 21:18 +0200
Re: Testing random random832@fastmail.us - 2015-06-16 16:23 -0400
Re: Testing random Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-06-16 13:48 -0700
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-16 23:57 +0200
Re: Testing random sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2015-06-16 15:30 -0700
Re: Testing random Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-06-16 16:58 -0600
Re: Testing random Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-06-17 11:28 +0200
Re: Testing random Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2015-06-16 16:26 -0700
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-17 01:45 +0200
Re: Testing random sohcahtoa82@gmail.com - 2015-06-16 17:36 -0700
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 11:01 +1000
Re: Testing random Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2015-06-16 18:32 -0700
Re: Testing random Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-06-17 09:41 +0100
Re: Testing random Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-06-17 14:04 +0000
Re: Testing random Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 09:01 -0600
Re: Testing random MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2015-06-17 01:42 +0100
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-17 08:53 +0200
Re: Testing random Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-06-17 09:22 +0200
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-17 17:28 +1000
Re: Testing random Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2015-06-17 08:30 +0100
Re: Testing random Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-06-17 11:57 +0200
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-17 01:36 +0000
Re: Testing random Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-06-17 12:33 +0200
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-17 22:47 +1000
Re: Testing random Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-06-17 15:50 +0200
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-17 01:35 +0000
Re: Testing random Jussi Piitulainen <jpiitula@ling.helsinki.fi> - 2015-06-17 07:41 +0300
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-08 11:11 +1000
Re: Testing random Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-06-07 11:07 -0600
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 03:20 +1000
Re: Testing random "C.D. Reimer" <chris@cdreimer.com> - 2015-06-07 10:36 -0700
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-08 04:28 +1000
Re: Testing random Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-06-08 04:40 +1000
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-08 04:24 +1000
Re: Testing random Jonas Wielicki <jonas@wielicki.name> - 2015-06-07 12:41 +0200
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-07 22:52 +1000
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-07 23:06 +1000
Re: Testing random Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-06-07 15:35 +0200
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 18:36 +0200
Re: Testing random Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2015-06-07 18:48 +0200
Re: Testing random Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-06-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Testing random Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2015-06-08 11:35 +1000
Re: Testing random Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-06-07 14:53 +0200
Re: Testing random Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-06-07 11:04 -0400
csiph-web