Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed4a.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 0.010 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; '*not*': 0.07; 'coverage.': 0.07; 'ambiguity': 0.09; 'received:internal': 0.09; '111111111': 0.16; '123456789': 0.16; 'combinations': 0.16; 'equal.': 0.16; 'message-id:@webmail.messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'received:10.202': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2': 0.16; 'received:10.202.2.44': 0.16; 'received:66.111': 0.16; 'received:66.111.4': 0.16; 'received:compute4.internal': 0.16; 'received:messagingengine.com': 0.16; 'statement.': 0.16; 'subject:random': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'claiming': 0.22; 'header :In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'not.': 0.27; 'sequence': 0.27; "doesn't": 0.28; "skip:' 10": 0.30; 'fri,': 0.31; 'getting': 0.33; 'point': 0.33; 'problem': 0.33; 'skip:~ 10': 0.33; 'equal': 0.34; 'on,': 0.35; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.35; 'exist': 0.35; 'there': 0.36; 'received:10': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.37; '12,': 0.37; 'instead': 0.38; 'rather': 0.38; 'received:66': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'why': 0.40; 'your': 0.60; 'even': 0.61; 'claim': 0.61; 'from:no real name:2**0': 0.61; 'header:Message-Id:1': 0.62; 'thomas': 0.63; 'total': 0.64; 'limit': 0.65; 'honest': 0.76; 'subject:Testing': 0.84 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=He/XcANVxZgL6UNQieTwYFMUzzw=; b=I63k3P 26wyCwX7YxPJv3DB0OqCfrYc/i0I9y39YxUUw2MXIAEO1ccw4rLc7JnJeWbuIs34 gLnU8lipgEhWto+VBFy8ozTQAtkAKtypeJT9VFCW/JwmH8QibTPUa8nU/ukcfkWl Ib3l2VI2zR//aKj6J67U77cCEw356iMORKszY= 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=He/XcANVxZgL6UN QieTwYFMUzzw=; b=foTMuzJG4DspPuI7WtHxqnulUwSJ0GMfri50qsxcOVehTsI 4RZDnslUmh3A/roBNQFfj/qavobEtsOlrxDW5QDJ/1O91KZdnIaGldlCBYeTL9jD B9EUXh9A78D3agTssELezWaa+u/90mKaJP+ddxbGqqEfS5s/DSql1GgeRRRU= X-Sasl-Enc: +ykxS+BHceAomr8V6zcGTczuzyqB5NMuZD2uYAccKxzC 1434145947 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-ff004c4b In-Reply-To: <1481051.eNy53rHVEB@PointedEars.de> 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> <16299015.icEhCTIHP8@PointedEars.de> <1481051.eNy53rHVEB@PointedEars.de> Subject: Re: Testing random Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 17:52:27 -0400 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: 40 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1434145951 news.xs4all.nl 2885 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:46813 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:92557 On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, at 17:32, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > > > The probability of 123456789 and 111111111 are equal. The probability > > of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing > > only 1s are *not* equal. > > There is a contradiction in that statement. Can you find it? There is not. The probability of 111111111 is ~0.000000002581, given each digit is chosen from 1 to 9. The probability of 123456789 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123456798 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123456879 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123456897 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123456978 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123456987 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123456897 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123457689 is ~0.000000002581. The probability of 123457698 is ~0.000000002581. And so on, for a total of 362,880 combinations. The probability of getting one of these combinations is ~0.000936656708 ~0.000936656708 is not equal to ~0.000000002581. QED. Your problem is that you _continually insist_ on interpreting "probability of a member of this set" as meaning "probability of one particular member of this set" rather than "probability of any member of this set". It's like claiming the probability of getting a digit from 1 to 3 when you roll a six-sided die is ~0.1667 instead of 0.5, and playing stupid when people point out why you're wrong. And it's not even defensible as an honest misunderstanding because the linguistic ambiguity doesn't exist in the original claim about the limit probability of full coverage.