Subject:
|
Re: Chaotic Systems... (was: Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:50:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1240 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott A wrote:
>
> For “sequential” read “consecutive”
>
> >
> > I know that 1-6 is just as likely to be selected as any other ‘random’
> > combination. However, I can’t help thinking that any selection is more
> > likely to a non-sequential combination. Further, if a sequential combination
> > were to be selected - it would be slightly less likely to be that one than
> > almost any other.
Well, definitely such a sequence is much less likely than a more "random
looking" sequence. If you 6 numbers are the digits 1-9, there are only 4
such sequences compared to a total of 9!/3! sequences (if each digit can
only occur once, 9^6 otherwise). If each number is 1-100, there are 95
sequences compared to 100!/94! (or 100^6 if repeats are allowed) total
sequences.
What would be interesting is an estimate of the number of total
sequences which would appear to observers as non random. There are
definitely non-ordered sequences I would percieve as non-random (for
example, a 6 number sequence where the numbers are allowed to repeat and
the set of allowed numbers is 0-9 would result in me perceiving
3-3-1-9-6-3 as non-random since my birthday is 3/3/1963).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
