That doesn't work at all. There are not 2 possibilities, there are thousands. Only one is correct, therefore it has to be one in thousands.
What are the chances...?
- Thread starter Van Hellseek
- Start date
That doesn't work at all. There are not 2 possibilities, there are thousands. Only one is correct, therefore it has to be one in thousands.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,376
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Naturally, but break it down to boolean, I choose a random 4 digit pin, it is either right, or wrong, 50/50. I believe that was his point?
I don't see how that is interesting at all, surely there's nothing surprising about the fact that if there are two possibilities and you randomly choose one then they each have an equal chance of being selected? Am I missing something
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,376
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Nope. You're not missing anything. It's pretty dull. One is probabilities (1 in 10000), one is... something else.I don't see how that is interesting at all, surely there's nothing surprising about the fact that if there are two possibilities and you randomly choose one then they each have an equal chance of being selected? Am I missing something
I don't believe you.
well the 50/50 thing i would say is wrong, the options available to pick from is 0000 to 9999, so it would be a 1 in 10000 chance to pick the correct number 50/50 would be if you left with two numbers from the first 10000 
Erm, random does exist. Atomic/radioactive decay is random.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,390
Great that means I have a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery!
- Joined
- 2 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 18,423
I wouldn't believe it either, but I've just been eating the proof that it worked (snack food paid for on a card I don't/didn't have the PIN for).
I wouldn't believe it either, but I've just been eating the proof that it worked (snack food paid for on a card I don't/didn't have the PIN for).
No you haven't. Have you bet your mate on the gullibility of OcUK or something?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,311
- Location
- Telemark
No it isn't, look at it on a small enough scale and something caused the particle to be released at that exact moment, something which given enough data, could have been predicted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 14,199
- Location
- Hall
lul wut? on a small enough scale things are objectively random, eg an unstable atom, it will decay but the time it takes is random (ie schroedinger's cat).
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,311
- Location
- Telemark
No, we just don't understand particle physics enough yet.
This.
You cannot predict when an atom will decay, you can only give the probability of it decaying in a certain period of time.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,390
I think Biggles is arguing that 'true' randomness does not exist, which is correct, but randomness can exist depending on your definition of the word.
I hope this is not going to spiral into another "but things could change" discussion. Science is a collection of theories we believe to be correct in the here and now. Currently, decay is random. End of discussion really.
True randomness does exist. If you're referring to generation of random numbers using mathematical processes, e.g. pseudorandomness, then you're talking sense. Otherwise, you're not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 14,199
- Location
- Hall
rofl, you'll be saying browian motion isn't random either?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,390
If we had knowledge of everything in our universe, then surely we would be able to predict everything, since every outcome is influenced and determined by some factor(s). How can an outcome be determined by nothing?