this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
-21 points (29.4% liked)

Showerthoughts

31187 readers
463 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted, clever little truths, hidden in daily life.

Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts: 1

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. No politics
    • If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
    • A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
    • If you feel strongly that you want politics back, please volunteer as a mod.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS

If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.

Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report the message goes away and you never worry about it.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s not how that works.

[–] Crul@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Doesn't it depends on whether we are talking about real or integer numbers?

EDIT: I think it also works with p-adic numbers.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

op is right, infinity is larger than you're imagining

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

OP is wrong. A truly random real number does have a much higher probability of being an irrational number or repeating rational number, but it is certainly not the case that a truly random number “will be” one of these two as terminating rational numbers are still possible to select.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There an infinite number of numbers that have infinite length and are not irrational or repeating. Infinity is larger than youre imagining.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are you referring to arbitrarily large numbers? Still essentially the same as decimals in the other direction.

Do you have a mathematical proof for the OP’s claim that a truly random number must have infinite digits?

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you're claiming OP is wrong, you need the proof homie

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

OP actually has the burden to prove their own claim, but here you go:

Suppose we create an algorithm to generate a random number, such that:

  • The first digit is the ones
  • The second digit is the tenths
  • The third digit is the tens

And so on. For example, if we generated the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 it would represent the number 531.246.

For a number to be non-infinite, there must be at some point be a digit where all digits after it generate a 0.

For all numbers in our sequence, the probability of generating a 0 is 1/10: there is no point at which we cannot generate a 0. Furthermore, after the first 0 is generated at a, the odds of a+1 being 0 are also 1/10, as are the odds of a+2, a+3, and a+n. So we cannot identify a b, such that entry a+b must be >0, since the odds of any given a+b generating 0 are also 1/10.

Based on this, we can use induction to show that it is possible to generate a truly random number that is a terminating rational number, and indeed it is possible to show this for any specific number as well. For example, the number 2 can be generated by simply rolling “2, 0, 0, 0, 0, …” and there is no nth digit in the sequence that cannot be generated at 0, since the odds of any given n being 0 are still 1/10.

[–] lntl@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For a number to be non-infinite, there must be at some point be a digit where all digits after it generate a 0.

For all numbers in our sequence, the probability of generating a 0 is 1/10: there is no point at which we cannot generate a 0. Furthermore, after the first 0 is generated at a, the odds of a+1 being 0 are also 1/10, as are the odds of a+2, a+3, and a+n. So we cannot identify a b, such that entry a+b must be >0, since the odds of any given a+b generating 0 are also 1/10.

the odds of randomly selecting 0 exactly an infinite number of times is exactly zero which is why OP is right

Probability of a=0 is (1/10)

  • Pa = (1/10)
  • Pb = (1/10)

Probability of both being 0:

  • Pa AND Pb =(1/10)*(1/10)

then for n 0s

Pn = (1/10)^n

as n -> inf, Pn -> 0

put another way, (1/10)^inf = 0