on a random string of digits number 123 appears every 1000 digits, 221 every995digits

[raaaid]

well that problem is also present in my program since it uses a pseudo random secuence just as pi

but that would be exactly the case in an online casino

for what i know an online casino could be using a pi secuence after the 1 billionth digit

and were getting in enjoiable crazy stuff here:

you pass a beam of light trough a double slit

you put no detector light shaps a wave pattern in the photosensible surface

you put a detector in the RIGHT slit

light will shape a paricle in the surface

but how does it know when it goes through the LEFT slit?

answer:

when you dont pay attention to me i dont exist, im a product of your mind

i say it this way because if i applied to me you would think me crazy

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by salmo

There are problems with your methodology. The datatset you are using (1 Million Digits of Pi) is NOT random for your purposes. May I suggest you download a randomly generated dataset from somewhere like www.random.org or find other sources of random data and re-run your analysis. I assure you, that p(1,2,3) = p(2,2,1) = 1/1000

Actually you are both wrong.

For example, given a set of real numbers {1,2,3 ... 10000}

The string 123 occurs 11 times {123, 1123, 1230, 2123, 3123, 4123, 5123, 6123, 7123, 8123, 9123} as does the string 223 {223, 1223, 2223, 2230, 3223, 4223, 5223, 6223, 7223, 8223, 9223}.

Thus the probability is 1:1000 for 1000 real numbers but 11:10,000 for 10,000 real numbers.

The probability changes with sample size, getting larger as the set of reals being sampled gets larger.

You need to work out probabilities for a population rather than a sample.

You can of course manipulate the sample size to get aberrant results. For example the set of reals {1,2,3 ... 1200} has two elements containing the string 123 and only one element containing the string 223. This results from ad hoc manipulation of set size to get the results you want.

We should leave that sort of non-scientific ad hoc data manipulation to conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers

[raaaid]

well statistics are pretty crazy i found the flaw

i left the computer just half hour calculating, when i returned from a coffe in the bar i assumed it would be the right result but leaving it 3 hours gave out number 221 appears every 1000 digits as it should

hell computers are stone age, so slow

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Actually you are both wrong.

For example, given a set of real numbers {1,2,3 ... 10000}

The string 123 occurs 11 times {123, 1123, 1230, 2123, 3123, 4123, 5123, 6123, 7123, 8123, 9123} as does the string 223 {223, 1223, 2223, 2230, 3223, 4223, 5223, 6223, 7223, 8223, 9223}.

Thus the probability is 1:1000 for 1000 real numbers but 11:10,000 for 10,000 real numbers.

The probability changes with sample size, getting larger as the set of reals being sampled gets larger.

You need to work out probabilities for a population rather than a sample.

You can of course manipulate the sample size to get aberrant results. For example the set of reals {1,2,3 ... 1200} has two elements containing the string 123 and only one element containing the string 223. This results from ad hoc manipulation of set size to get the results you want.

We should leave that sort of non-scientific ad hoc data manipulation to conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers

Correction. Your set {1,2,3 ... 10000} is actually a finite subset of Natural Numbers. Moreover, your subset excludes zero, but your derivations include zero??? Keep drinking the Kool-Aid son of Al Gore. Btw, it has recently been reported that the manpig got a D in the natural sciences class!

edit:
Well, I'll cut some slack about the zero. But raaaids function a= Math.GetRandomNumber(10) does it generate 0-9 or 1-10? I'm assuming 0-9.

[WTE_Galway]

true the sample sets should be {0,1,2,3 ... 1199} etc

That doesn't change the fact that probabilities change with sample size.

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Btw, it has recently been reported that the manpig got a D in the natural sciences class!

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

[raaaid]

if you have an ugly lottery number like 1444 its as likely to turn out as 2643 if you count the number 4444 as two 444 but less likely if you count 4444 as just one 444

now if common folk call it an ugly lottery number who knows