1 |
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 7:37 PM, <gottlieb@×××.edu> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, Jun 28 2014, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> That doesn't matter. Take a non-negative integer N; if you flip a coin |
5 |
>> an infinite number of times, then the probability of the coin landing |
6 |
>> on the same face N times in a row is 1. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> This is certainly true. |
9 |
> |
10 |
>> This means that it is *guaranteed* to happen |
11 |
> |
12 |
> That is not as clear. |
13 |
|
14 |
Let me be more precise (and please correct me if I'm wrong): It is |
15 |
guaranteed to happen at some point in the infinite sequence of random |
16 |
flip coins, but we cannot know when it will happen, only that it will |
17 |
happen. |
18 |
|
19 |
That's the way I got it when I took my probability courses, admittedly |
20 |
many years ago. |
21 |
|
22 |
In any way, even if I'm wrong and it is not guaranteed, the main point |
23 |
remains true: the probability of getting a large sequence of the same |
24 |
number from a RNG is 1 for every true random RNG, and therefore seeing |
25 |
a large sequence of the same number form a RNG doesn't (technically) |
26 |
means that it is broken. |
27 |
|
28 |
Regards. |
29 |
-- |
30 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
31 |
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias |
32 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |