Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #92714
| Date | 2015-06-17 01:42 +0100 |
|---|---|
| From | MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> |
| Subject | Re: Testing random |
| References | (9 earlier) <17701105.fuEQZlnPee@PointedEars.de> <ff4a8ffd-50fe-4705-b33a-fcf63bcccc11@googlegroups.com> <2089101.KkvqnN9Xah@PointedEars.de> <dfc293e6-01b8-4179-92c3-2d7c2ffcbbe8@googlegroups.com> <3049728.zPiIGXGd9A@PointedEars.de> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.532.1434501913.13271.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On 2015-06-17 00:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > 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. > I think that different people are talking about different things in this thread. You're talking about the probability of each event, while everybody else is talking about the probability of certain combinations of events. If you have, say, two children, the possibilities are: boy, boy boy, girl girl, boy girl, girl The probability of each boy or girl is 1/2. The probability of only boys is 1/4 and of a son and a daughter is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2. Therefore, the probability of having only boys is less than the probability of having a son and a daughter.
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