Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1a.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.023 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.95; '*S*': 0.00; 'finite': 0.09; 'length.': 0.09; 'received:internal': 0.09; 'size,': 0.13; 'arbitrarily': 0.16; 'close",': 0.16; 'confusion': 0.16; 'limit,': 0.16; 'message-id:@webmail.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:10.202': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2.212': 0.16; 'received:66.111': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4': 0.16; 'received:messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'subject:random': 0.16; 'time).': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'say,': 0.18; 'input': 0.18; 'am,': 0.23; 'select': 0.23; '2015': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'mon,': 0.24; 'chris': 0.26; 'least': 0.27; 'mathematical': 0.27; 'sequence': 0.27; 'accidentally': 0.29; 'symbols': 0.29; 'unlikely': 0.29; 'guess': 0.29; 'random': 0.29; 'there.': 0.30; 'e.g.': 0.31; 'gets': 0.32; 'case,': 0.34; 'file': 0.34; 'could': 0.35; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.35; 'attempt': 0.35; 'represent': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'there': 0.36; 'possible': 0.36; 'two': 0.37; 'received:10': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'desired': 0.37; "won't": 0.38; 'received:66': 0.38; 'files': 0.38; 'mean': 0.38; 'means': 0.39; 'expect': 0.39; 'unable': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'some': 0.40; 'term': 0.60; 'yes': 0.60; 'close': 0.61; 'from:no real name:2**0': 0.61; 'times': 0.61; 'header:Message-Id:1': 0.62; 'more': 0.62; 'distance': 0.63; 'of:': 0.66; 'trial': 0.81; 'subject:Testing': 0.84; 'universe': 0.84; 'closer.': 0.91; 'heat': 0.91 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fastmail.us; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=PgED2kCsT62eyY250fWBZePc8Lg=; b=c+ODCl eEmfpUiYqX0fCyHG5VlyLNZMSfImD3Npg8vVNKSW9gXElZHO6l1k2ldRvVdVvKy2 98pjuSo4GBZKI5lwp82yIdEQndSZDUy+1lGkXQmEUoFhfE8T/TmFMg1hpbJdk/33 9iaC33Zuv9or1wa6cr/E/EEmbaDYWYQa6Mva4= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=PgED2kCsT62eyY2 50fWBZePc8Lg=; b=Gn7LSu5p6ymJOiZ/tRjZsbfw85EtR0vXLU6GPtgnaadD3w/ dBGVJCbh+6W3Gt7YTjKiebAFhbyubbsMwqvPkHZWk4HdNRzv0WJ/1ZNI6X/LdrCq 8jdNNdcZy/gwW9M6T4gXkuWagV7j4rxUANfEG0o0jmZb4Zx4b1IT5RgrMv68= X-Sasl-Enc: IVof40Suom6j4x/XHinOTruIYG5a4FDyef1hNxArK+Rn 1433728623 From: random832@fastmail.us To: python-list@python.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-b076c697 Subject: Re: Testing random Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2015 21:57:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <87oaksowwg.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <1451048.pW9z17ilMA@PointedEars.de> <3158703.Lr4HFMbMOd@PointedEars.de> <1656356.OjxBvjpJ5d@PointedEars.de> <5515034.V7dcXEWAvK@PointedEars.de> <1583276.2lplL8rY5W@PointedEars.de> <44804165.jDZYAAtjtx@PointedEars.de> <1506818.lbhLiAFkUt@PointedEars.de> <1433727278.3822814.289289041.222E2077@webmail.messagingengine.com> X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20+ Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1433728625 news.xs4all.nl 2882 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:49171 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:92323 On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 21:42, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:34 AM, wrote: > > In general, as the number of trials increases, the probability of having > > e.g. at least one of each value never _reaches_ 1, but it gets > > arbitrarily close. > > And by "arbitrarily close", you mean any of: > > * So close to 1.0 that IEEE double precision is unable to represent it > * So unlikely that you could perform one trial every nanosecond until > the heat death of the universe and still not expect to see it > * Less likely than that two files could accidentally collide on MD5, > SHA1, SHA256, and file size, simultaneously > > I think all of the above are true of this case, though I have to guess > about the heat death of the universe. Well, yes (assuming, as you say, that the heat death of the universe is a finite time). More precisely, "arbitrarily close" is a mathematical term which means that for any desired distance from the limit, there is an input that will cause the result to get closer. It's entirely possible to select a number of symbols and a number of trials that won't get you there. I also think there may have been some confusion with some of us using "trial" to refer to each individual random number, and some of us at some times using it to refer to each attempt to generate a sequence of a given length.