Re^4: [OT] Stats problem

build yourself a small monte carlo simulation

Well, its running, but it'll need to run for a while to be statistically valid.

In the meantime are you saying that the fact that the value at any given offset has to match both the value and the offset has no influence upon the chances of a false positive?

The UK national lottery picks 6 balls from 49: 49!/(6!*(49-6)!) = 1:13,983,816 chance.

And once all 6 balls are out of the machine; they reorder them by ascending value; so the result is always shown as B1 < B2 < B3 < B4 < B5 < B6.

But if players had to match both the numbers and their draw order, it would be a lot harder. The odds would be 6! * 13,983,816 = 1:10,068,347,520.

So, value and position: highly increased odds; but you're saying that's not a factor here?

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked

Comment on Re^4: [OT] Stats problem

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: [OT] Stats problem by RichardK (Parson) on Feb 27, 2015 at 12:40 UTC
As I understand it the 2 events are completely independent. At the time the corruption occurs there a 100% percent chance that each cell has a fixed value, so it's just not relevant how that value was arrived at.	[reply]


Don't ask to ask, just ask
	PerlMonks