Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: Testing random Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 01:45:27 +0200 Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Lines: 52 Message-ID: <3049728.zPiIGXGd9A@PointedEars.de> References: <87oaksowwg.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <1451048.pW9z17ilMA@PointedEars.de> <3158703.Lr4HFMbMOd@PointedEars.de> <1656356.OjxBvjpJ5d@PointedEars.de> <5515034.V7dcXEWAvK@PointedEars.de> <88ba163e-74f4-40fa-ab3e-1feeb051b961@googlegroups.com> <17701105.fuEQZlnPee@PointedEars.de> <2089101.KkvqnN9Xah@PointedEars.de> Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Trace: solani.org 1434498506 2124 eJwNydEVADEEBMCWWJZ35QTRfwm5+R1aaHR6MJzLlYSd1vKWC4zmRIqwB1fEzx+EflwzDKr6AQyCEJ8= (16 Jun 2015 23:48:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@news.solani.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 23:48:26 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/4.14.2 X-User-ID: eJwFwQkBwDAIA0BL0JEAcspT/xJ2h4/KdiNoeHiWcX1anC09ra/dmZIbR1MVBxEXVRJ3dGnc4viqWFbI4Q9GjRTe Cancel-Lock: sha1:RB+5D8znbTx7fLQ70RTmJOkhbBM= X-NNTP-Posting-Host: eJwNysEBwCAIA8CVRJKI4yCV/Ueo9z66TLUgCmw2MgcrcO8apT2/E1tMMM5sf3Mg7T3nlWzhBxpaEKs= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:92709 Ned Batchelder wrote: > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Your programmatic "proof", as all the other intuitive-empirical "proofs", >> and all the other counter-arguments posted before in this thread, is >> flawed. As others have pointed out at the beginning of this thread, you >> *cannot* measure or calculate probability or determine randomness >> programmatically (at least not with this program). > > You *can* estimate probability with a program, which is what is happening > here. No. Just no. >> I repeat: Probability is what relative >> frequency (which you can measure) *approaches* for *large* numbers. 100 >> is anything but large, to begin with. > > The number of trials in this program is not 100, it is 1 million. You > seem uninterested in trying to understand. It still would _not_ a measure or a calculation of *probability*. So much for “uninterested in trying to understand”. >> What is "large" depends on the experiment, not on the experimentator. >> And with independent events, the probability for getting zero does not >> increase because you have been getting non-zeros before. It simply does >> not work this way. > > Again, if you look at the code, you'll see that we are not talking about > the probability of getting a zero on the next roll. We are talking about > the probability of getting no zeros in an N-roll sequence. I have no idea > how you have misunderstood this for so long. You do not understand that it boils down to the same problem. The probability of only having sons is _not_ greater than that of having sons and one daughter or vice-versa. And for that it does _not_ matter how many children you have *because* it does _not_ matter how many children you had before. The probability for a boy or a girl is *always* the same. You are _not_ due for a boy if you have many girls, and not for a girls if you have many boys. But that is precisely what your flawed logic is implying. Learn probability theory, and use a dictionary in Python when you want to count random hits. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.