flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
Index
> Heap > Perplexed by relationship of draw numbers Goto page 1, 2 Next 
Author 

revolution
sleepsleep wrote: Does having past information could somehow affect future information? Or if the officials are corrupt then the answer will be "anything is possible". 

27 Jun 2018, 22:30 

sleepsleep
i am slightly confused by what is the definition of your truly random,
now let say we use your truly random device and draw a series of dice numbers, 1,4,5,6,5,5,2 could we say in a higher certainty that such series wouldnt repeat in the next draw? (this is what i mean by having past information, it somehow dictates how future proceed) then we use the truly random device to draw next series, 5,1,3,6,2,1,4 we are very sure that there is no relationship in each draw, there is equal amount of possibilities and chances that each number from 1 to 6 could be drawn, but why it looks impossible to have exact past draw series? so could we predict the next number by having lots of past series by assuming it got lower chances to match previous drawn number series? 

28 Jun 2018, 18:24 

Furs
sleepsleep wrote: now let say we use your truly random device and draw a series of dice numbers, It has nothing to do with memory, it's because it's extremely unlikely to have an exact sequence  MUCH more unlikely than having ANY other sequence. If you bet on the next draw not being 1,1,1,1,1,1,1 then it would be the exact same thing. In both cases the probability is the same, which is really, really, really low. Let's simplify it to a single dice roll. Say you just rolled a 6. You say with confidence that the next one won't be a 6, and you'll most likely be correct. This has nothing to do with memory. It's just that the next one being 6 is only 1/6 chance. Clearly 5/6 (83%) is much more likely than 1/6 (17%). On a similar note, a lot of people think that getting two 6s in a row means that the second one is much rarer than 1/6, but that is false. It's no different than picking any sequence whatsoever. Two 6s in a row is not less likely than the sequence 6 followed by 5, they're equally likely as 6 followed by 4, and so on. Any other specific sequence has the same chance. But remember that when you look for a specific sequence, it's "either THIS specific sequence, or ANY other sequence". It's not a specific sequence vs another specific sequence (which are equal), it's a specific sequence vs ALL the other sequences. All of them. 

28 Jun 2018, 18:57 

Tomasz Grysztar
Furs wrote: On a similar note, a lot of people think that getting two 6s in a row means that the second one is much rarer than 1/6, but that is false. For the same reason when you roll a longer sequence, probability that all numbers will be different is higher than probability that all numbers will be the same. 

28 Jun 2018, 19:30 

sleepsleep
does the nature of a truly random device ~ will not repeat its past sequence?
let use a truly random dice, regardless of x count of roll, each number still has equal amount of chances to get rolled, am i correct here? as mentioned by tomasz, Quote: If you roll twice in a sequence, probability of rolling 6 and 6 is the same as probability of rolling 6 followed by 5 so why past dice result sequence is a factor here? Quote: Yes, if you bet then it's extremely wise to bet that the next one won't be 1,4,5,6,5,5,2. is the probability of rolling 6 and 6 and 6 then 6 still same? if probability of each rolling is same, why it seems harder to get 6,6,6,6,6,6 sequence? 

28 Jun 2018, 20:56 

revolution
sleepsleep wrote: does the nature of a truly random device ~ will not repeat its past sequence? Last edited by revolution on 28 Jun 2018, 23:04; edited 1 time in total 

28 Jun 2018, 21:57 

revolution
sleepsleep wrote: is the probability of rolling 6 and 6 and 6 then 6 still same? if probability of each rolling is same, why it seems harder to get 6,6,6,6,6,6 sequence? 

28 Jun 2018, 22:00 

sleepsleep
somehow i was thinking about this,
does world event affect random, earthquake, volcano eruptions, flooding, solar flare, etc, could we say in higher confidence that it is harder to get repeat observed sequence? 

29 Jun 2018, 08:26 

sleepsleep
revolution wrote:
very true, but 6,6,6,6,6,6 sort of breaking the nature of random ( which is probably why i perceived it as harder to roll ) 

29 Jun 2018, 09:50 

Furs
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
sleepsleep wrote: as mentioned by tomasz, Do this experiment. Flip a coin 5 times. Getting 5 heads in all of the flips is rare, right? Ok, so now ask for a specific sequence like: head,tail,tail,head,tail. See how often that pops up. Really just put all the sequence together. To simplify, toss the coin twice. You want heads twice in a row. Let's look at true random possibilities. Code: head>head < what you want head>tail < nope tail>head < nope tail>tail < nope 

29 Jun 2018, 11:50 

revolution
sleepsleep wrote: somehow i was thinking about this, 

29 Jun 2018, 12:21 

revolution
sleepsleep wrote: but 6,6,6,6,6,6 sort of breaking the nature of random sleepsleep wrote: ( which is probably why i perceived it as harder to roll ) 

29 Jun 2018, 12:26 

sleepsleep
revolution wrote:
ya, less likely to roll 6,6,6,6,6,6 since it is hardly random, compare to 6,4,1,5,5,3 revolution wrote:
but historical sequence is unrelated in the sense, each number has equal chance to get roll how about 1 dice to roll 6,6,6,6,6,6 versus 6 dices to roll all 6 at the same time? which one got higher probability, i would bet 6 dices but why? and what is truly random device? if the device is on earth, i assume most likely it would gets affected by earth condition, Furs wrote:
for a head tail 10 equal comparison, you might need to extend the sequence to 33 flips, 1,1,1,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,0,0 at least i am quite sure it is near difficult to row the sequence as i written above in 33 flips, eg. 

29 Jun 2018, 16:25 

Furs
sleepsleep wrote: ya, less likely to roll 6,6,6,6,6,6 since it is hardly random, compare to 6,4,1,5,5,3 sleepsleep wrote: how about 1 dice to roll 6,6,6,6,6,6 versus 6 dices to roll all 6 at the same time? Keep in mind that, say, assuming you rolled 6 five times already, the next one being 6 will be 1/6 chance (sixfaced die) so quite high to be 6 again. However this completely misses the fact that you are extremely unlikely to even get to this point (i.e. roll 6 five times) since you already got 5 out of 6 of the entire sequence correct. Any failure up to this point would effectively stop you before you continued, but people don't think of that. sleepsleep wrote: and what is truly random device? if the device is on earth, i assume most likely it would gets affected by earth condition, 

29 Jun 2018, 16:57 

sleepsleep
i assume historical sequence of random output (required) in order to determine if a random output is quality, good or bad,
which mean, if 6,6,6,6,6,6 occurred in less than 30 dices roll, it is bad random? Furs wrote:
i would hope if you could elaborate about this, true random, 

30 Jun 2018, 01:06 

revolution
sleepsleep wrote: i assume historical sequence of random output (required) in order to determine if a random output is quality, good or bad, 

30 Jun 2018, 11:56 

Furs
sleepsleep wrote: i assume historical sequence of random output (required) in order to determine if a random output is quality, good or bad, However if you get any sequence twice within 30 rolls (like your 6,6,6,6,6,6 sequence), it's probably biased and not true random, or it could be a coincidence but very rare so... True random means that there's no inherent bias and all are equally likely (or at least, are exactly as likely as specified). 

30 Jun 2018, 14:36 

sleepsleep
true random means no inherent bias, which mean the historical sequence must conform to the nature of balance, am i correct?
in order to know if an object produces true random, we must rolls the output for thousand or million times and check if the result got bias or not, but doesnt it conforms to nature of balance equal to some sort of bias? let say, in 10k draws of a dice, dice A got each faces appears 16.6% dice B got 1=20%, 2=5%, 3=3%, 4=40%, 5=10%, 6=12% dice C got 1=1%, 2=20%, 3=1%, 4=20%, 5=5%, 6=53% but dice A got 50% repeated sequence, dice B got 10% repeated sequence, dice C got 20% repeated sequence, which is a better true random dice? 

30 Jun 2018, 17:05 

Furs
sleepsleep wrote: true random means no inherent bias, which mean the historical sequence must conform to the nature of balance, am i correct? sleepsleep wrote: but doesnt it conforms to nature of balance equal to some sort of bias? (I know your example is fictional, but in the real world, things do have memory, even if the ideal true randomness statistically should not  that's beyond statistics though, it's more like looking at either computer code or molecular structures or the person who throws the dice... computer pseudorandom code could even be doing it on purpose!) 

30 Jun 2018, 18:40 

Goto page 1, 2 Next < Last Thread  Next Thread > 
Forum Rules:

Copyright © 19992020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.
Website powered by rwasa.