A number chosen truly at random will have infinite digits

Comments

• Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  That’s not how that works.

  source

  • Crul@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Doesn’t it depends on if we are talking about n∈ℝ or n∈ℤ?

    source

    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      No. In the set of real numbers it is still very possible to randomly select a number that can be written with finite digits.

      source
• ShunkW@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  No it wouldn’t. You don’t understand how random works

  source
• funkajunk@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  No, if truly random it could be any number from 0 to infinity. The randomization doesn’t impart any qualities to the selected number.

  If you randomly selected numbers from the infinite range of numbers for an infinite number of time, you would get a result of “7” just as often as getting “3.456e11”.

  source

  • al4s@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The probability of getting a finite number is pretty much zero.

    For any range [0; n], where n is finite, there are always infinitely many numbers larger than n, so the probability of getting a number in said range is n/(n+infinity). I feel very confident in saying that something with that probability will never happen.

    source

    • funkajunk@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If there’s any probability of an event, on an infinite timeline, it occurs infinite times.

      source
    • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The probability of getting any number with a given set of characteristics is pretty much 0, but that doesn’t mean the number doesn’t exist once generated.

      source
• pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I see what you’re saying (assuming you mean a random integer from 0 to infinity), but it couldn’t really, since there’s no such thing as an integer with infinite digits - any random integer will have finite number of digits.

  The real problem is there’s no way to choose a random number from 0 to infinity. Every finite number has a probability of 0, and in fact, for any number you choose, there is 0 probability that it will be less than that number. Note that 0 probability is different from “impossible” - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

  source
• panbroggi@feddit.it ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  I think it’s right

  source

  • Crul@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I also think that’s correct… if n ∈ ℝ.

    People are probably thinking about n ∈ ℤ.

    source

    • HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yes real numbers, but as far as I’m aware it’ll happen for integers too almost surely

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• spez@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  why?

  source

  • NAXLAB@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Oh my God it’s spez

    source

    • johsny@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Is he here to fuck lemmy up too?

      source
    • spez@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      👋 👋

      source
  • KISSmyOS@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Fuck you!

    source
• Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Wait, are you high in the shower? Because that’s a little different.

  source
• Narrrz@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  are we counting an infinite number of zeroes after the decimal point, as having infinite digits? because if you specifically exclude while numbers, your output would not be truly random, though it would be essentially impossible to distinguish it from true randomness.

  source
• jabberati@social.anoxinon.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  @HonoraryMancunian No, since the result could be 3 randomly. It will only have infinite digits with a 100% probability. Yes, that's different.

  source
• FelipeFelop@discuss.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Why would it have infinite digits? It is just as like to be 0.

  source