← Home ← Back to /sci/

Thread 16805528

164 posts 14 images /sci/
Anonymous No.16805528 [Report] >>16805529 >>16805531 >>16805539 >>16805577 >>16806094 >>16806110 >>16806131 >>16806142 >>16806188 >>16810054 >>16811901 >>16812210 >>16812211 >>16812986 >>16813276 >>16813445 >>16816151
Randomness
If you have a machine picking random lottery numbers for an infinite amount of time, is there actually a reason why every number combination would eventually be picked?
I mean that if it is truly random, what's stopping it from "randomly" never landing on a certain combo?
Anonymous No.16805529 [Report] >>16812286
>>16805528 (OP)
My retarded normie brother says "because that's what randomness means" but I don't see a logical reason why randomness would necessarily exhaust all options.
Anonymous No.16805531 [Report] >>16805533 >>16805551
>>16805528 (OP)
>"randomly" never
It's not random if it avoids something forever.
Anonymous No.16805533 [Report] >>16805538
>>16805531
so set up multiple machines with infinite time.
They wont be avoiding anything because each machine will be missing a different combination.
Anonymous No.16805538 [Report]
>>16805533
>Do this one special trick that magically avoids a combination
Your headcanon will never be random.
Anonymous No.16805539 [Report]
>>16805528 (OP)
yet another question because midwits think infinity is "just a really big number"
infinity is just the breakfast problem for midwits
Anonymous No.16805551 [Report] >>16805556
>>16805531
So you think randomly and never can't go together but randomly and always can?
Anonymous No.16805556 [Report] >>16805591 >>16813275
>>16805551
You can't avoid something forever if it's random. This doesn't change based on the words you use to describe what is or isn't being avoided.
Anοnymοus No.16805564 [Report] >>16805572
Suppose you're generating numbers randomly and each number is a digit from 0 to 9.
Then you're looking for the string/sequence 272902930. Well, that string has 9 digits, so it has a chance of happening for every 9 digits you generate: 1/10^9. So you could say you're generating numbers from 1 to 10^9 randomly and this is one number that can be generated. Then you do the math. The chance of not generating this number once is (10^9 - 1)/10^9. The chance of not generating it in n attempts is ((10^9 - 1)/10^9)^n. And, as n -> oo, ((10^9 - 1)/10^9)^n -> 0.
Anonymous No.16805572 [Report]
>>16805564
That's called a normal number.
Anonymous No.16805577 [Report] >>16805579
>>16805528 (OP)
As long as the number in question has a probability of showing up, no matter how small that probability is, then the probability that it will occur approaches 1 as your sample size approaches infinity.
That's just how limits work.

We could arbitrarily define a random function which excludes the probability that, say, 9 will show up. But that would simply exclude 9 from thae sample space.
Anonymous No.16805579 [Report] >>16805627
>>16805577
If you exclude a single digit in any base, the leftovers converge.
Anonymous No.16805591 [Report] >>16805595 >>16805621 >>16813712
>>16805556
I don't get this at all.

You can flip a fair coin and get tails.
You can flip it again and get tails
You can flip it N times and get tails every time.
For every number M I give, you can flip the coin N > M times and get tails every time. It is boundless so it is infinite. It is random at every step. So what do you mean?

I realize the limit P(N tails) -> 0 as N -> inf, but then I might as well argue that P(at least 1 head in N) = 1 - P(N tails) -> 1 - 0 = 1. Surely you can see this calculation holds for any imaginable unbounded sequence, not just the all tails sequence, so exhausting all N sequences and letting N -> inf wouldn't one arrive at the contradiction that at least one sequence must occur yet no sequence can occur?
You already know there is nothing impossible about flipping heads, so what sort of logic are you applying here?
Anonymous No.16805595 [Report] >>16805604 >>16813696
>>16805591
As you describe N you can't flip it N times and get tails every time. That's where we disagree, I think.
Anonymous No.16805604 [Report] >>16805619
>>16805595
Alright for what N can't I flip tails one more time?
Anonymous No.16805619 [Report] >>16806085
>>16805604
You tell me. I'm not the one pretending you can't.
Anonymous No.16805621 [Report] >>16806082
>>16805591
>For every number
infinity is not a number
Anonymous No.16805627 [Report] >>16805638
>>16805579
Essentially, yes.
More important to the point is your RNG function need not have every number be equally likely.
If 9 was possible, but 1/100th as likely as the other numbers, it still will show up necessarily. My argument had nothing to do with modulo.
Anonymous No.16805638 [Report] >>16805641
>>16805627
>Essentially
No, canonically
https://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.2008.11920559
Anonymous No.16805641 [Report] >>16805642
>>16805638
Don't be a pedant.
I meant "essentially" as "what you said basically mirrors what I said" abd then elaborated on distinctions between our statements.
It is trivial to point out that removing a number from the sample adjusts all other probabilities accordingly. And the results of changing the base mirror this fact which is also trivial. But it was beside my intended point.
Anonymous No.16805642 [Report]
>>16805641
There's no similarity between you being a retarded faggot and me being a gatekeeper for how reciprocal sums work.
Anonymous No.16806082 [Report]
>>16805621
learn to read
Anonymous No.16806085 [Report] >>16806091
>>16805619
Someone is though. Someone here is pretending it is impossible because it would contradict coin flips being a random process
Anonymous No.16806091 [Report] >>16806092
>>16806085
Powerball is 1 in 292201338 and that's the least likely jackpot of all lotteries.
Anonymous No.16806092 [Report] >>16806096
>>16806091
Yes and /sci/ claims that if everyone lived forever and we played powerball forever it would not be possible for any particular individual to never win and for powerball to be a random process at the same time.
Anonymous No.16806094 [Report] >>16806095
>>16805528 (OP)
ergodic theorem
Anonymous No.16806095 [Report]
>>16806094
>ergodic theorem
explain
Anonymous No.16806096 [Report] >>16806098
>>16806092
This is true. Any number between 0 and 1 multiplied by itself forever is 0.
Anonymous No.16806098 [Report] >>16806100
>>16806096
take your meds
Anonymous No.16806100 [Report]
>>16806098
You're the one predicating your bullshit on "forever," not me lol.
Anonymous No.16806110 [Report] >>16806113
>>16805528 (OP)
let's say that lottery numbers are compromised of [math]n[/math] digits (between 0 and 9, including 0 and 9). we will have a total of [math]10^n[/math] lottery numbers.

what does "picking random" means? it can pick randomly with equal probability two different numbers ignoring others (0 probability for others). let's us say that every number's probability equal to [math]\frac{1}{10^n}[/math], for simplicity we will denote it as [math]p(n)[/math]. so now the question is: if we pick numbers for infinite ammount of time, will we get every number?

what is the probability of picking a number [math]x[/math] for our first attempt? well, obviously [math]p(n)[/math], not a big number for a big [math]n[/math]. maybe we could pick [math]x[/math] in two attempts? we draw two numbers from the machine, what is the probability that [math]x[/math] is one of them? we have three variants: pulled [math]x[/math] in first attempt, pulled [math]x[/math] in second attempt, pulled [math]x[/math] twice. the total probability will be [math]p(n)(1-p(n)) + (1-p(n))p(n) + p(n)^2[/math]. bigger than [math]p(n)[/math] but still a small number for sufficiently large [math]n[/math].

okay, what about the general case? quite easy: it will be complementary probability of not getting [math]x[/math]. so the probability of getting at least 1 time the number [math]x[/math] in [math]k[/math] equals to [math]1 - (1-p(n))^k[/math]. as you can see, because [math]0<1-p(n)<1[/math] as [math]k[/math] grows we will have that [math](1-p(n))^k \rightarrow 0[/math]. in this sense, in infinite ammount of time we will get [math]x[/math] no matter what.

concrete example: let's say [math]n[/math] equals to 6, then we have [math]1-p(6) = 0.999999[/math]. let [math]k[/math] be [math]10 000 000[/math] (ten million), then the probability of [math]x[/math] being picked at least once in ten million is [math]1 - 0.999999^10000000 \approx 0.9999546[/math]. yep, a safe bet that it will be picked.
Anonymous No.16806113 [Report]
>>16806110
this can be repeated for a subset of lottery numbers or for all of the set of lottery numbers
Anonymous No.16806131 [Report]
>>16805528 (OP)
Nothing, no one saying that can’t happen, but when you measure the probability it’s zero, meaning improbable.
You’re a retarded bitch I bet you IQ is higher than 120 you dumb science bitch lmao.
Mr iq is lower than 30, low IQ kings keep winning
Anonymous No.16806142 [Report]
>>16805528 (OP)
You are not going to believe this, but this was my exact thesis topic. I hired an infinite number of monkeys to type on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time.
What they wrote was my thesis.
I passed with honors.
I have never read ot myself, but ChatGPT says a lot of nice things to me when we talk. I'm sort of a brilliant young genius in its eyes.
Yes. To answer your original question.
Anonymous No.16806188 [Report]
>>16805528 (OP)
depends on the machine and the algorithm it uses
Anonymous No.16806225 [Report] >>16806340 >>16806400
True randomness has never been tried
Anonymous No.16806340 [Report]
>>16806225
Acab
Anonymous No.16806400 [Report]
>>16806225
Einstein tried. God stopped him.
Dice playing is STRICTLY NOT ALLOWED.
Einstein recanted and preached the True Message from that moment on.
(The rest of the story, to you is now known.)
Anonymous No.16808624 [Report]
Idk
Anonymous No.16810054 [Report] >>16810098
>>16805528 (OP)
Anon discovers the ergodic hypothesis
Anonymous No.16810098 [Report] >>16810104 >>16810134
>>16810054
>ergodic hypothesis
>It means that time averages of a system's properties are equal to ensemble averages.
Can you explain this in lame man's terms?
Anonymous No.16810104 [Report]
>>16810098
A moving system will eventually visit all parts of the space in which the system moves.
Anonymous No.16810134 [Report]
>>16810098
the other way it's usually phrased is "a system in a given macrostate will eventually, given enough time, visit all of the possible microstates corresponding to that macrostate"
Anonymous No.16811901 [Report]
>>16805528 (OP)
>r landing on a certain combo?
When you define the combo you loose randomness. It's per definition that it can have always the same number or never any oft hem. That start with one digit and ends in infinity.
Anonymous No.16812210 [Report] >>16812354
>>16805528 (OP)
>If you have a machine picking random lottery numbers for an infinite amount of time, is there actually a reason why every number combination would eventually be picked?
>I mean that if it is truly random, what's stopping it from "randomly" never landing on a certain combo?
Nothing. It's possible that it will pick the same number over and over for eternity. You can reconcile this with statistics by noting that this is only one possible outcome and conceive of parallel universes that embody all the other possible outcomes.
Anonymous No.16812211 [Report] >>16812212
>>16805528 (OP)
>infinite time
>finite amount of lottery number combinations
Yes, every combination will be picked regardless of true or pseudo randomness.
Anonymous No.16812212 [Report] >>16812213 >>16812228 >>16812249 >>16812892
>>16812211
>Yes, every combination will be picked regardless of true or pseudo randomness.
Trivially false. An infinite sequence of 1s contains no combinations involving 1s.
>b-b-b-but the probability of such a sequence is heckin' approaches 0
The probability of any particular sequence approaches 0.
Anonymous No.16812213 [Report]
>>16812212
no combinations involving 0*
Anonymous No.16812228 [Report] >>16812236
>>16812212
>Finite amount
>Erm actually if you have an infinite sequence
What's wrong with "people" like you?
Anonymous No.16812236 [Report]
>>16812228
>i'm suffering from a psychotic illness
Please inform your handler.
Anonymous No.16812249 [Report] >>16812252
>>16812212
Probability of a polychromatic sequence in 0,1 by the nth digit is (2^n - 2)/(2^n).
Anonymous No.16812252 [Report] >>16812256
>>16812249
>Probability of a polychromatic sequence in 0,1
Completely irrelevant to the point made.
Anonymous No.16812256 [Report] >>16812257
>>16812252
>infinite sequence of 0s
>infinite sequence of 1s
These two together have a probability of 0. The complement has a probability of 1. You always get both digits.
Anonymous No.16812257 [Report] >>16812259
>>16812256
>The complement
Doesn't specify any particular sequence. Completely irrelevant to the point made.
Anonymous No.16812259 [Report] >>16812260
>>16812257
>Doesn't specify any particular sequence.
Neither does OP. If you thought it did, you might be an Indian bot.
Anonymous No.16812260 [Report] >>16812261
>>16812259
Again, it's very clear that you're psychotically ill. You seem to be replying to some voices in your head about arguing about things that have nothing to do with my posts. Please report to your handler.
Anonymous No.16812261 [Report] >>16812266
>>16812260
Whatever you say, India.
Anonymous No.16812266 [Report] >>16812291 >>16812364
>>16812261
>psychotic patient keeps screeching about India for no discernible reason
Self-hating street shitter detected. Either way, the point still stands completely unaddressed: getting the same numbers over and over ad infinitum is as good an outcome as any, which is very much a reason why you may not actually get every number combination.
Anonymous No.16812286 [Report] >>16812289 >>16812364
>>16805529
Do you even understand what infinite means? Any bias, specially not picking certain numbers, would imply the generator is trash.
Anonymous No.16812289 [Report]
>>16812286
>Any bias, specially not picking certain numbers, would imply the generator is trash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy
Anonymous No.16812291 [Report]
>>16812266
Lol Indians. Not once.
Anonymous No.16812354 [Report] >>16812366
>>16812210
Why is this so hard for people to admit? If it is truly random there will be a universe where it picks one number over and over again. There is no logical objection to this.
Anonymous No.16812364 [Report]
>>16812286
Do you understand if something is random it can keep flipping heads for infinite time? In fact, since this would be probabilistically low, based on your own assumptions, one of the machines would HAVE to produce this outcome, as anon says >>16812266
You just self-refuted yourself.
Anonymous No.16812366 [Report] >>16812419
>>16812354
The probability that you're in that universe is 0. The probability that you're in a universe that doesn't pick one number over and over again is 1.
Anonymous No.16812419 [Report] >>16812426
>>16812366
>The probability that you're in that universe is 0.
The probability that you're in any particular universe is 0. 0 probability clearly doesn't mean impossible
Anonymous No.16812426 [Report] >>16812436
>>16812419
The probability that you're in any universe that isn't a particular universe is 1.
Anonymous No.16812436 [Report] >>16812453
>>16812426
>The probability that you're in any universe that isn't a particular universe is 1.
Uh oh. I broke the bot.
Anonymous No.16812453 [Report]
>>16812436
You broke something.
Anonymous No.16812892 [Report] >>16812899
>>16812212
nice bait retard
Anonymous No.16812899 [Report] >>16812906
>>16812892
>mentally ill and seething because can't into basic stats
Anonymous No.16812906 [Report] >>16812911
>>16812899
I can literally write a program right now for a small set of 1-9 lottery numbers and I guarantee you it will pick all numbers even with randomness, now expand that to a larger set that is STILL FINITE with INFINITE RUNTIME and you will still complete all combinations because you have infinite time.
Anonymous No.16812911 [Report]
>>16812906
>I can literally write a program right now for a small set of 1-9 lottery numbers and I guarantee you it will pick all numbers even with randomness
>I guarantee
You make false guarantees because you're 80 IQ and like most 80 IQs, you think your opinions somehow control reality.
Anonymous No.16812986 [Report] >>16813016
>>16805528 (OP)
> is there actually a reason why every number combination would eventually be picked?
Yep. Here's exactly the reason:
>an infinite amount of time,
Anonymous No.16813016 [Report] >>16813023
>>16812986
>hurrrrrr number very big therefore anything i want will happen eventually
This apparently counts for "reasoning" on nu-/sci/.
Anonymous No.16813023 [Report] >>16813031
>>16813016
> number very big
Infinity is not even a number. Now you're free to leave this place.
Anonymous No.16813031 [Report] >>16813039
>>16813023
Quote the part of my post that claims infinity is a number. You can't. Now go treat your psychotic illness and stick to the 90 IQ lane where you belong.
Anonymous No.16813039 [Report] >>16813041
>>16813031
>Quote the part of my post that claims infinity is a number.
here you go:
>hurrrrrr number very big therefore anything i want will happen eventually
Now quote where I said that ANYTHING can happen
Anonymous No.16813041 [Report] >>16813043
>>16813039
Is your psychotic illness causing you to hallucinate the word "infinity" somewhere among my words? Either way, come back when you can do basic stats and basic reasoning.
Anonymous No.16813043 [Report] >>16813045
>>16813041
> what is context?
here's the context to your words:
>> an infinite amount of time,
> hurrrrrr number very big
Anonymous No.16813045 [Report] >>16813046
>>16813043
Notice how besides your general inability to offer any kind of mathematical reasoning, you are also unable to establish any logical connection between the context, what I wrote, and what you incorrectly inferred. It's almost like you're a mindless bot.
Anonymous No.16813046 [Report] >>16813047
>>16813045
Stop fucking with my mind, troll. You lost the argument and secretly we both know it.
Anonymous No.16813047 [Report] >>16813079
>>16813046
You never attempted to make any kind of argument. Your posts contains no reasoning. It's literally just "hurrrr infinity therefore stuff". You don't understand the problem I'm pointing out because you're a subhuman token predictor. Predicting tokens is how you "think" and the string of tokens you shat out is what your model has to offer in response to OP's prompt.
Anonymous No.16813079 [Report] >>16813081
>>16813047
I guess the root of your misunderstanding is that you suppose the amount of numbers to be also infinite, when it's explicitly stated that those are some lottery numbers, which never are.
Anonymous No.16813081 [Report] >>16813124
>>16813079
The roof of your misunderstanding is having too low an IQ for mathematical reasoning, so you substitute it with vague feelings that bias your token generation. Also kek'd at how your last post lacks even basic coherence. Literally mindbroken.
Anonymous No.16813124 [Report] >>16813135
>>16813081
> zero substance
the same zero to which the possibility of a single number of a finite set not being picked in all the infinitiy of picks pretty much equals.
Anonymous No.16813135 [Report] >>16813151 >>16813203
>>16813124
>zero to which the possibility of a single number of a finite set not being picked in all the infinitiy of picks pretty much equals.
The probability of any particular sequence is 0. Treat your mental illness and then learn the bare basics of stats.
Anonymous No.16813151 [Report] >>16813176
>>16813135
>The probability of any particular sequence is 0
So? Fucking Indians ruining the internet as usual lol
Anonymous No.16813176 [Report] >>16813178
>>16813151
No one was talking to you, brown animal.
Anonymous No.16813178 [Report]
>>16813176
Sure thing Derek Jeeter
Anonymous No.16813203 [Report] >>16813256
>>16813135
>The probability of any particular sequence is 0.
This will never stop filtering retards.
Anonymous No.16813217 [Report]
infinity means nonstop, you cannot see all of them to check it.you just can asume it's possible
Anonymous No.16813256 [Report]
>>16813203
Buh-buh-buh-but... the combined probability of the whole fucking set of other possible outcomes is 1, which means you definitely got all of them and not whatever you ended up getting. You see, it was impossible for you to get the sequence that you actually did, because it was overwhelmingly more likely for you to get everything that you didn't. And before you dispute this, I have to warn you: I am VERY intelligent.
Anonymous No.16813275 [Report] >>16813283
>>16805556
> You can't avoid something forever if it's random.

This is 100% not true. There are ton of non-ergodic random processes (i.e., processes which do not fully explore their state space given infinite time and infinite trials).
Anonymous No.16813276 [Report] >>16813279 >>16813298
>>16805528 (OP)
Because that's the meaning of random more or less.
> from "randomly" never landing on a certain combo?
Then it's not random, by definition.
Anonymous No.16813279 [Report] >>16813284
>>16813276
Show me the definition of "random" that rules out sequences that don't conform to your diversity quota, hole.
Anonymous No.16813283 [Report] >>16816164
>>16813275
>If I pervert the randomness by adding a systemic bias so that it's not random, it won't be random anymore
Thrilling insight.
Anonymous No.16813284 [Report] >>16813287
>>16813279
My diversity quota is that there is no diversity quota. Random = no diversity quota.
Anonymous No.16813287 [Report] >>16813290
>>16813284
>My diversity quota is ...
I don't care, hole. I'm not seeing the relevant definition there.
Anonymous No.16813290 [Report] >>16813292
>>16813287
What's your definition?
Anonymous No.16813292 [Report] >>16813294
>>16813290
>what's your...
I don't care, hole. I'm not seeing the relevant definition there. I take it you have none.
Anonymous No.16813294 [Report] >>16813312
>>16813292
I don't see your definition either, hole.
Anonymous No.16813298 [Report] >>16813299
>>16813276
>Because that's the meaning of random
Congratulations, that's what my 100 IQ brother says, not that he has ever defined the term, but he just KNOWS what it means.
You really don't understand the gamblers fallacy. There is no logical justification, just like induction.
Anonymous No.16813299 [Report] >>16813304 >>16813305 >>16813339
>>16813298
That's the only possible definition of the term random. Adding any other condition gives you information about the sequence.
Anonymous No.16813304 [Report] >>16813307
>>16813299
>That's the only possible definition of the term random
You seem to be suffering from a psychotic illness. You never provided any definition of the term.
Anonymous No.16813305 [Report]
>>16813299
e.g., that IQ is largely genetic
Anonymous No.16813307 [Report] >>16813314
>>16813304
Ask your brother, he's smarter than you Lmao
Anonymous No.16813312 [Report] >>16813315 >>16813402 >>16813415
>>16813294
Randomness is the arbitrary closure of the gap between multiple possible outcomes and one actual outcome. But this isn't even relevant. You're simply too disabled to understand that getting the same numbers N times in a row, is an inherent part of the relevant uniform probability distribution.
Anonymous No.16813314 [Report] >>16813315
>>16813307
Notice how your psychosis is showing in multiple ways now in the very same post.
>can't keep track of different posters
>can't keep track of what you said
>can't keep track of what the posts you replied to are saying
Anonymous No.16813315 [Report] >>16813318
>>16813312
>Randomness is the arbitrary closure of the gap between multiple possible outcomes and one actual outcome
This is meaningless
>But this isn't even relevant
Ok?? So why did you include it??
>getting the same numbers N times in a row
Only for finite N
>>16813314
>projection
Anonymous No.16813318 [Report] >>16813322
>>16813315
>everything my 80 IQ mind can't process is "meaningless"
>why did you include a direct answer to the question i asked????
>ummm, sweaty??? what you said is only true for literally every number of trials
Mandatory state sterilization is the only moral solution here. The curse of your bloodline should have stopped with the stray animal you call your grandmother back when they knew how to handle the feeble-minded.
Anonymous No.16813322 [Report] >>16813332 >>16813339 >>16813340
>>16813318
>For any N there are only finitely many number smaller than N. Therefore, there are finitely many numbers.
This is literally what you are saying and you're having a racism-induced genocidal aneurysm because I pointed out your mistake.
Anonymous No.16813332 [Report] >>16813337
>>16813322
I like how quickly you devolve from simple idiocy into schizophrenic delusions about statements no one made.
Anonymous No.16813337 [Report]
>>16813332
>projection
Anonymous No.16813339 [Report] >>16813343
>>16813299
You haven't defined the term.
>>16813322
of course the retard ITT who doesn't understand is also a faggot offended by racism
Anonymous No.16813340 [Report] >>16813343
>>16813322
>racism
>genocidal
lol yep you're definitely brown, if your reading comprehension wasn't enough of a clue
Anonymous No.16813343 [Report] >>16813347
>>16813339
>>16813340
>genocidal racists struggling to understand the definition of randomness
This is not surprising but I'll help you out this one time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmically_random_sequence
Anonymous No.16813347 [Report] >>16813351
>>16813343
>niggermonkey links to a random wiki article it didn't read because it contains the word 'random'
Anonymous No.16813351 [Report] >>16813353
>>16813347
>stroke-having racist afraid to open wikipedia link defining randomness, which it asked for
Like poetry
Anonymous No.16813353 [Report] >>16813356
>>16813351
>niggermonkey literally doesn't read the random article it links to so it doesn't realize the page doesn't define randomness
this is moot because as was pointed out to you earlier you struggle with the simple concept of a uniform probability distribution
Anonymous No.16813356 [Report] >>16813359
>>16813353
Your racism-induced stroke has made you braindead. You are not even worth talking to. Feel free to die in misery.
Anonymous No.16813359 [Report]
>>16813356
>niggermonkey having a stroke about microaggressions instead of reading the random article it linked to
garbage race, janny please clean up
Anonymous No.16813364 [Report]
>braindead racist crying about being asked to read a wiki article in its dying throes
Unsightly
Anonymous No.16813366 [Report] >>16813368
>It is important to disambiguate between algorithmic randomness and stochastic randomness. Unlike algorithmic randomness, which is defined for computable (and thus deterministic) processes, stochastic randomness is usually said to be a property of a sequence that is a priori known to be generated by (or is the outcome of) an independent identically distributed equiprobable stochastic process.
There really is only one moral solution to the 80 IQ "intellectualism" question.
Anonymous No.16813368 [Report]
>>16813366
>doing the niggermonkey's reading for him
you're part of the problem. that's immoral
Anonymous No.16813371 [Report]
>braindead racists struggling to grasp at non-existent straws before their final breath
Anonymous No.16813372 [Report] >>16813383
>be niggermonkey
>link to an article that explicitly goes out of its way to help the reader avoid making a certain mistake
>make that mistake anyway because you didn't read the article
>get called out
>still refuse to read the article
>someone posts a direct quote from the article explaining your mistake
>literally claim the article doesn't exist
Anonymous No.16813380 [Report]
>certain mistake
>that mistake
Lol, the braindead racist creature doesn't even know what mistake it thinks it showed by quoting a sentence from a wiki article which contains multiple definitions of random sequences.
Anonymous No.16813383 [Report]
>>16813372
"People" of this kind don't have any notion of having made a mistake or any objective recollection of what happened at all. They live completely in the moment.
Anonymous No.16813402 [Report]
>>16813312
>Randomness is the arbitrary closure of the gap between multiple possible outcomes and one actual outcome
Isn't it time for your handlers to finally put you down for good? This is just embarrassing. ;^)
Anonymous No.16813415 [Report] >>16813419 >>16813428
>>16813312
>Randomness is the arbitrary closure of the gap between multiple possible outcomes and one actual outcome
That's one way to put it. It's not math though
Anonymous No.16813419 [Report]
>>16813415
>It's not math though
You got that right at least, it's a brainshart. :^)
Anonymous No.16813428 [Report] >>16813442
>>16813415
>It's not math though
OP's hypothetical is not math, either.
Anonymous No.16813442 [Report]
>>16813428
If you mean what randomness "does" assuming it exists in reality, that definition works
Anonymous No.16813445 [Report] >>16813474
>>16805528 (OP)
It depends what you mean by "eventually".
Anonymous No.16813474 [Report] >>16813479
>>16813445
He means that if the machine keeps trying, at some point it will go over all the possible combinations.
Anonymous No.16813479 [Report] >>16813486
>>16813474
OK, what does "at some point" mean?
Anonymous No.16813486 [Report] >>16813490
>>16813479
Means there's a ton of inbreeding going on in your family.
Anonymous No.16813490 [Report]
>>16813486
Can you define that more rigorously?
Anonymous No.16813696 [Report]
>>16805595
You are saying there is an excluded state tree? Why?
Anonymous No.16813712 [Report]
>>16805591
>what sort of logic are you applying here?
If you haven't noticed the pattern yet, this horde isn't applying any logic at all. They just have some feeling about it that it which they keep reasserting with one-liners.
Anonymous No.16813809 [Report] >>16813831 >>16813852
>be mentally ill retard basement dweller on 4chan
>grifter tells you to bet all your parents' money in a game where you lose if you flip a coin of the grifter's choice and it comes out tails each time
>agree to the game because you are mentally retarded and prone to getting grifted
>play game and naturally get all tails
>proceed to give him all the money because the result was random
Watch as the mentally retards will still fail to understand this simple post..
Anonymous No.16813825 [Report] >>16813831
@16813809
This is what schizophrenia looks like. Notice how this brown mongrel is arguing with some voices in its head about things not relevant to anything posted ITT.
Anonymous No.16813831 [Report]
>>16813809
>>16813825
>Indian reply posts
When you forget to deprecate the last version of your bot and they start gang raping each other.
Anonymous No.16813852 [Report]
As predicted, the mentally ill retards failed to understand >>16813809 and started frothing at their mouths in a fit of rage.
Anonymous No.16813861 [Report]
@16813852
@16813809
>all you mentally ill retards just don't understand!!!!!!!!
>if a sequence is the same number repeated, it's probably not a random outcome
>that means if a process IS random, it can't have that outcome
80 IQ browns trying to logic. State-enforced sterilization is moral, rational, necessary and coming soon.
Anonymous No.16813863 [Report]
>even though I got all zeros, the process is random because my grifter told me so!!!!!
>take my money mr. genius grifter!!!!
This braindead pest still doesn't get it.
Anonymous No.16813864 [Report]
@16813863
>but i did eat indian street food for breakfast
80 IQ browns trying to logic. State-enforced sterilization is moral, rational, necessary and coming soon.
Anonymous No.16813868 [Report]
I can't count the number of times I've broken this braindead cretin by now.
Anonymous No.16813874 [Report]
>but what if you could pick any random food for breakfast?
>I DID EAT INDIAN STREET FOOD FOR BREAKFAST YOU MENTALLY ILL RETARD SCAMMER MADARCHOD!!!!!!!
>I EAT THE SAME CURRYSLOP EVERY DAY!!!!
>I WILL BRAKE YOU!!!!
Lol ok. Sterilization soon.
Anonymous No.16816151 [Report]
>>16805528 (OP)
because the underline premise is brute force of the original contention retard thats the entire thing of your argument


pick randomly forever you will land on the winning number

finite time and compute resources would limit the brute force capability of your simulation
Anonymous No.16816164 [Report] >>16816175 >>16816246 >>16816385
>>16813283
>If I pervert the randomness by adding a systemic bias so that it's not random, it won't be random anymore

You don't know what the word "random" means. You can have a process defined by:
[math]
X_{k+1} = \begin{cases}
X_{k} + 1, & \text{ with probability } p \\[5pt]
X_{k} + 1/2, & \text{ with probability } 1-p
\end{cases}, \quad X_0 = 0
[/math]

Every single [math]X_{k} \to X_{k+1}[/math] is random, but you can be certain that if [math]X_{k} = 5[/math], then there will never be a time-step [math]n > k[/math] where [math]X_n \leq 5[/math].

It is entirely possible for a random process to not be exhaustive. All "being random" means is that knowing the previous values does not give you a guarantee of the next value.
Anonymous No.16816175 [Report] >>16816200
>>16816164
>If I keep flipping a coin and shove 1 marble up my ass for every heads or 2 marbles up my ass for every tails, then my ass will keep filling up with marbles. This is random!
Dumbest post in the thread, by far, and that's saying a lot given all the Bot Brahmabots here.
Anonymous No.16816200 [Report] >>16816212
>>16816175
I'm sorry that you don't understand, but when you say that "numbers are drawn in a random sequence" that doesn't tell you anything about whether "all of the numbers will be drawn."

A random sequence of numbers will inevitably have repeats. Depending on the actual way that random process operates, there is literally no guarantee you will ever get the exact sequence you want. Random =/= "every possible number is equally likely."
Anonymous No.16816212 [Report] >>16816220
>>16816200
If the "random process" doesn't operate randomly, it's not random. If you choose a biased process that allows you to hoard marbles in your ass and never dishoard any, that IS NOT A RANDOM SYSTEM, moron.
Anonymous No.16816220 [Report] >>16816222 >>16816225
>>16816212
> If the "random process" doesn't operate randomly, it's not random. If you choose a biased process that allows you to hoard marbles in your ass and never dishoard any, that IS NOT A RANDOM SYSTEM, moron.

You're a moron who doesn't understand what the word "random" means. I'll repeat it again, random just means "knowing the past values doesn't tell you the future values." That's all it means. It means nothing more than that. If it isn't possible to predict the next number in the sequence, it's random. That's it. That's all it means and nothing more.
Anonymous No.16816222 [Report]
>>16816220
You're a moron arguing with a spambot.
Anonymous No.16816225 [Report] >>16816229
>>16816220
Enjoy your "random" luck playing cards against someone who knows that the systemic bias of a deck makes it NOT RANDOM, you absolute fucking moron lol.
Anonymous No.16816227 [Report] >>16816228
>all you mentally ill retards just don't understand!!!!!!!!
>if a sequence is the same number repeated, it's probably not a random outcome
>that means if a process IS random, it can't have that outcome

>>what if you could pick any random food for breakfast?
>BUT I DID EAT INDIAN STREET FOOD FOR BREAKFAST YOU MENTALLY ILL RETARD SCAMMER MADARCHOD!!!!!!!
>I EAT THE SAME CURRYSLOP EVERY DAY!!!!
>I WILL BRAKE YOU!!!!
Anonymous No.16816228 [Report]
>>16816227
>Indian reply syntax
Anonymous No.16816229 [Report] >>16816235 >>16816241
>>16816225
Random =/= uniform. Having a "bias" doesn't mean the distribution isn't random. The vast majority of probability distributions are not uniform. Take a bell curve. It has a "peak" in its distribution. That doesn't make a random sample from that bell curve "not random."
Anonymous No.16816235 [Report]
>>16816229
>Random =/= uniform.
A uniform distribution is as likely to give you the same numbers over and over as it is to give you whatever other "random" looking string you end up getting. This is not even the issue. The issue is that you're arguing with a literal spambot.
Anonymous No.16816241 [Report]
>>16816229
Sure does. You can even bias the random zeta function to converge or diverge based on the exponent you choose. Carving out your own moronic definition for "random" that arbitrarily excludes some randomness while including other randomness is not an argument.
Anonymous No.16816246 [Report]
>>16816164
I'll do you better. Suppose our machine generates a 0 with probability p and 1 with probability 1-p. Totally random but you can be certain that the machine never says 2!!
Anonymous No.16816385 [Report]
>>16816164
find out the probability of X_k ever reaches 5. I'm playing league so not available rn.