Vanishingly small, but always positive.
Iâm still queasy about the idea of a random number from an infinite range. No matter what number you come up with, there will always be infinite numbers bigger than it.
1 Like
Well I donât understand this at all, in addition to being dumb I am missing something. Anyway, I am probably playing the opposite of this. If Spidercrab tells me the first number is a billion and two I am still switching. I know what you are up to.
1 Like
The random number is between 0 and 1.
If you read the replies on that twitter thread theyâre not assuming that at all. Theyâre also talking about negative numbers. Theyâre saying you donât know the range, which I think is crucial to the game.
If you know the range is between 0 and 1, then you just pick again if the first number is below .50000000, right?
The random number is drawn from a distribution with mean 0 and standard deviation 1, but is bounded by -infinity and +infinity.
oh, duh, that makes more sense
Here is a fun one I just heard. Letâs say I take a random number between 0 and 1 and take the square root. Then I take two random numbers between 0 and 1 and take the higher of the two.
How do these two processes compare?
Theyâre the same thing
1 Like
Never heard of him.
Taylor Swiftâs boyfriendâs brother.
2 Likes
âŚand former professional footballer (American) where he took repeated head injury inducing collisions.
Dumb. if first picked number is far from zero i simply bet the other would be closer to zero. Thanks for nothing, math nerds
An NFL player is a meathead? Holy crap, this is big news.
2 Likes
Thereâs a fairly long history of experts not being able to accept that simple statistical algorithms outperform them. Before AI. Before moneyball. Someday Iâll look up that one paper. Maybe even read it.
Another fan of Matt Parker, perhaps?
This is from a few weeks ago:
or, orâŚhe knows he can get negative engagement from us math losers and heâs an evil meathead savant