If you have a machine picking random lottery numbers for an infinite amount of time, is there actually a reason why every number combination would eventually be picked? I mean that if it is truly random, what's stopping it from "randomly" never landing on a certain combo?
>>16805528My retarded normie brother says "because that's what randomness means" but I don't see a logical reason why randomness would necessarily exhaust all options.
>>16805528>"randomly" neverIt's not random if it avoids something forever.
>>16805531so set up multiple machines with infinite time. They wont be avoiding anything because each machine will be missing a different combination.
>>16805533>Do this one special trick that magically avoids a combinationYour headcanon will never be random.
>>16805528yet another question because midwits think infinity is "just a really big number"infinity is just the breakfast problem for midwits
>>16805531So you think randomly and never can't go together but randomly and always can?
>>16805551You can't avoid something forever if it's random. This doesn't change based on the words you use to describe what is or isn't being avoided.
Suppose you're generating numbers randomly and each number is a digit from 0 to 9.Then you're looking for the string/sequence 272902930. Well, that string has 9 digits, so it has a chance of happening for every 9 digits you generate: 1/10^9. So you could say you're generating numbers from 1 to 10^9 randomly and this is one number that can be generated. Then you do the math. The chance of not generating this number once is (10^9 - 1)/10^9. The chance of not generating it in n attempts is ((10^9 - 1)/10^9)^n. And, as n -> oo, ((10^9 - 1)/10^9)^n -> 0.
>>16805564That's called a normal number.
>>16805528As long as the number in question has a probability of showing up, no matter how small that probability is, then the probability that it will occur approaches 1 as your sample size approaches infinity. That's just how limits work.We could arbitrarily define a random function which excludes the probability that, say, 9 will show up. But that would simply exclude 9 from thae sample space.
>>16805577If you exclude a single digit in any base, the leftovers converge.
>>16805556I don't get this at all.You can flip a fair coin and get tails.You can flip it again and get tailsYou can flip it N times and get tails every time.For every number M I give, you can flip the coin N > M times and get tails every time. It is boundless so it is infinite. It is random at every step. So what do you mean?I realize the limit P(N tails) -> 0 as N -> inf, but then I might as well argue that P(at least 1 head in N) = 1 - P(N tails) -> 1 - 0 = 1. Surely you can see this calculation holds for any imaginable unbounded sequence, not just the all tails sequence, so exhausting all N sequences and letting N -> inf wouldn't one arrive at the contradiction that at least one sequence must occur yet no sequence can occur?You already know there is nothing impossible about flipping heads, so what sort of logic are you applying here?
>>16805591As you describe N you can't flip it N times and get tails every time. That's where we disagree, I think.
>>16805595Alright for what N can't I flip tails one more time?
>>16805604You tell me. I'm not the one pretending you can't.
>>16805591>For every numberinfinity is not a number
>>16805579Essentially, yes. More important to the point is your RNG function need not have every number be equally likely. If 9 was possible, but 1/100th as likely as the other numbers, it still will show up necessarily. My argument had nothing to do with modulo.
>>16805627>EssentiallyNo, canonicallyhttps://doi.org/10.1080/00029890.2008.11920559
>>16805638Don't be a pedant. I meant "essentially" as "what you said basically mirrors what I said" abd then elaborated on distinctions between our statements.It is trivial to point out that removing a number from the sample adjusts all other probabilities accordingly. And the results of changing the base mirror this fact which is also trivial. But it was beside my intended point.
>>16805641There's no similarity between you being a retarded faggot and me being a gatekeeper for how reciprocal sums work.
>>16805621learn to read
>>16805619Someone is though. Someone here is pretending it is impossible because it would contradict coin flips being a random process
>>16806085Powerball is 1 in 292201338 and that's the least likely jackpot of all lotteries.
>>16806091Yes and /sci/ claims that if everyone lived forever and we played powerball forever it would not be possible for any particular individual to never win and for powerball to be a random process at the same time.
>>16805528ergodic theorem
>>16806094>ergodic theoremexplain
>>16806092This is true. Any number between 0 and 1 multiplied by itself forever is 0.
>>16806096take your meds
>>16806098You're the one predicating your bullshit on "forever," not me lol.
>>16805528let's say that lottery numbers are compromised of [math]n[/math] digits (between 0 and 9, including 0 and 9). we will have a total of [math]10^n[/math] lottery numbers. what does "picking random" means? it can pick randomly with equal probability two different numbers ignoring others (0 probability for others). let's us say that every number's probability equal to [math]\frac{1}{10^n}[/math], for simplicity we will denote it as [math]p(n)[/math]. so now the question is: if we pick numbers for infinite ammount of time, will we get every number? what is the probability of picking a number [math]x[/math] for our first attempt? well, obviously [math]p(n)[/math], not a big number for a big [math]n[/math]. maybe we could pick [math]x[/math] in two attempts? we draw two numbers from the machine, what is the probability that [math]x[/math] is one of them? we have three variants: pulled [math]x[/math] in first attempt, pulled [math]x[/math] in second attempt, pulled [math]x[/math] twice. the total probability will be [math]p(n)(1-p(n)) + (1-p(n))p(n) + p(n)^2[/math]. bigger than [math]p(n)[/math] but still a small number for sufficiently large [math]n[/math].okay, what about the general case? quite easy: it will be complementary probability of not getting [math]x[/math]. so the probability of getting at least 1 time the number [math]x[/math] in [math]k[/math] equals to [math]1 - (1-p(n))^k[/math]. as you can see, because [math]0<1-p(n)<1[/math] as [math]k[/math] grows we will have that [math](1-p(n))^k \rightarrow 0[/math]. in this sense, in infinite ammount of time we will get [math]x[/math] no matter what.concrete example: let's say [math]n[/math] equals to 6, then we have [math]1-p(6) = 0.999999[/math]. let [math]k[/math] be [math]10 000 000[/math] (ten million), then the probability of [math]x[/math] being picked at least once in ten million is [math]1 - 0.999999^10000000 \approx 0.9999546[/math]. yep, a safe bet that it will be picked.
>>16806110this can be repeated for a subset of lottery numbers or for all of the set of lottery numbers
>>16805528Nothing, no one saying that can’t happen, but when you measure the probability it’s zero, meaning improbable.You’re a retarded bitch I bet you IQ is higher than 120 you dumb science bitch lmao.Mr iq is lower than 30, low IQ kings keep winning
>>16805528You are not going to believe this, but this was my exact thesis topic. I hired an infinite number of monkeys to type on an infinite number of typewriters for an infinite amount of time.What they wrote was my thesis.I passed with honors.I have never read ot myself, but ChatGPT says a lot of nice things to me when we talk. I'm sort of a brilliant young genius in its eyes.Yes. To answer your original question.
>>16805528depends on the machine and the algorithm it uses
True randomness has never been tried
>>16806225Acab
>>16806225Einstein tried. God stopped him.Dice playing is STRICTLY NOT ALLOWED.Einstein recanted and preached the True Message from that moment on.(The rest of the story, to you is now known.)
