Re: Dice
Re: Dice
- Subject: Re: Dice
- From: Graff <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:07:00 -0500
On Oct 31, 2004, at 10:53 AM, deivy petrescu wrote:
Finally, on checking the outcome in the case of rolling dice, the
random variables associated with these rolls (number of 1s, numbers of
2s, numbers of 3s, numbers of 4s, numbers of 5s, numbers of 6s) can be
studied. The fact that these are as close as they are measure the
assumption of equal probability, not of randomness.
A unfair coin (say 70%,30%) does not have equal probabilities but it
will be a random sequence nevertheless.
Which is really all that I was saying before people decided to get all
crazy about definitions and all. As I said from the beginning,
measuring the standard deviation of a set doesn't mean that the set has
to be random, it's just an indicator that the set might be usable for
non-serious applications of randomness.
For non-serious applications most people will be happy with a set of
numbers that all have equal probability and which have at least the
appearance of not having a pattern. You could probably use the first
100 digits of the square root of 7 over and over again and most people
will be just fine with using that as a set of random numbers, even
though they are not truly random.
Anyways, this horse has certainly been beaten dead...
- Ken
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
| References: | |
| | >Re: Dice (From: "John C. Welch" <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Dice (From: Bill Briggs <email@hidden>) |
| | >Re: Dice (From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>) |