/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14873833
(Math repost 1)
>reposting for math
So if i understand correctly, you're taking two random digits and concatenating them, and i assume every digit has an equal chance to be selected. DESU i don't understand what SQUASH means and i'm also not a programmer, i'm only asking to make sure your numbers are uniformily distributed (i.e. every number has equal chance of being selected), it seems that your method is fine. Again i'm not a programmer i'm just going to give you the math you need with some rudimentary explanations.
In this case your expected average will be 99/2 = 49.5, that is if you generate [math] n [/math] random numbers according to your above rule and take their average then you should expect a number around 49.5 (but it's not likely you will get 49.5 exactly!)

Also i want to say before i explain the math that you can never "prove" a statistical result is anomalous, you can only say something like
>"there's a 0.00000000001% chance i could've gotten this result according to my assumptions, so either an extremely rare event happened or my assumptions are incorrect, and since an event like that is extremely rare it's more likely my assumption is incorrect"
So i think you understand where we're going with this.
So let's say you generated [math] n [/math] random numbers (again according to the above rule) and found their average to be 56.1 after you do some psychic meddling thingy where you try to increase the average, so does this provide evidence for psychic meddling? what is the probability of getting 56.1 or a larger average if psychic meddling wasn't real? we can actually calculate this probability, it's actually equal to [eqn] \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \int_{Z}^{\infty} e^{-t^2/2} \; dt[/eqn]

>>14866731
Thank you fren. I can make a pegboard and get some ping-pong balls or something, but it would have to be a later thread because I would have to construct the board and buy ping-pong balls.

I kind of object to balls and a pegboard though. That process is definitely not random. If you had enough information about the balls and the pegboard and the forces applied and like the weight of the balls and all that stuff it would be computable. It seems like it is only "random" because it counts on observers not having all the info or not being able to compute the info.

I don't know how to compute it, but probably a physicist could tell us. If he does I will write SLAM code for his model, but first I have to write code for the rest of the stuff the nice math /sci/entist gave me a few posts ago.

I guess my question for the pegboard is to ask how they know the person is influencing the result and not instead computing the result by unknown means? Maybe they accidentally discovered a different superpower from the one they thought they did?

Also do you know where the paper is? I would like to read it.

>>14850955
I wrote you an answer, but it looks like it got removed somehow. Here it is in Warosu. I imagine probably a janny didn't like the Tohru or something.

>>/sci/thread/S14809934#p14851078

>>14823044
>A Natural Introduction to Probability Theory" by Ronald Meester

Thanks fren, I'll see if I can get a cheap one on eBonker.

>>14823061
I literally took a nap between my last post and this one. 2 hours worth of comfy snooze where I did not interact with 4chan. It's not my fault if this is a slower board.

>>14823187
I have no idea fren, I don't use laptops. I am a UMPC user. All the screenshots taken/code written for this thread was done on a GPD Win 3.