bedub1 wrote:
EDIT: If you have a list of 500k random numbers, then you need exactly 83,333.333333... of each number in order to maintain your probability of 1 out of 6. If your random list of numbers doesn't have a perfect distribution between the numbers(which it won't since it's random), then the odds won't be correct.
Dako wrote:Easy. If you want 500k numbers to have an equal amount of all numbers (1..6) then such a list will not be random anymore. Because random is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.
And yes, odds are not correct (what is correct anyway?) - they are random.
bedub1 wrote:Dako wrote:Easy. If you want 500k numbers to have an equal amount of all numbers (1..6) then such a list will not be random anymore. Because random is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.
And yes, odds are not correct (what is correct anyway?) - they are random.
Yes, but random and correct are not the same thing. The odds for the dice MUST remain 1 out of 6 else the dice are rigged.
carlpgoodrich wrote:bedub1 wrote:Dako wrote:Easy. If you want 500k numbers to have an equal amount of all numbers (1..6) then such a list will not be random anymore. Because random is a concept of non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.
And yes, odds are not correct (what is correct anyway?) - they are random.
Yes, but random and correct are not the same thing. The odds for the dice MUST remain 1 out of 6 else the dice are rigged.
No, you are not understanding the concept. Before the list is generated by random.org, there is exactly a 1/6 probability that each number will be a 1, or a 2, etc. However, that does not mean that exactly one sixth of the numbers end up being a 1, 2, etc. So any given file will have an uneven distribution, but it is still a correct sample of random numbers. It is both random and correct.
You are worried about the fact that, since in a given file there might be a lot more 6's (for example), therefore as long as that file is used the dice will be "rigged." As sound as that argument seems, it is simply not correct. The excess of 6's is simply a product of natural fluctuations in random numbers. To make this point more clear, lets pretend we want a list of 6 random numbers, each with a integer value between 1 and 6. Say the first one is randomly chosen to be a 1. If we force the proportions to be the same, then no number can appear twice, so the second number would have a 1/5 probability of being a 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, since it can not longer be a 1. However, random numbers must be entirely independent of any past or future events, so the restriction that the proportions be the same breaks the randomness of the numbers.
I hope this helps. Random numbers are a fascinating subject, and I would be more that happy to discuss this in more detail if anyone wants.
Maybe we should use a pseudo random number generator to pick a spot from the true random number generator list for every dice roll and not read anything sequentially.
natty_dread wrote:Maybe we should use a pseudo random number generator to pick a spot from the true random number generator list for every dice roll and not read anything sequentially.
We are already doing that. You apparently missed lack's announcement about it.
The thing is is that they ARE EXACTLY THE SAME! Rolling dice is just a way to produce a list of random numbers.If you guys love this list full of random numbers so much, then next time you play risk in real life or maybe yahtzee, try to convince all your friends to give up on the dice and just use the list of random numbers instead. Try and convince them that it's the same.
carlpgoodrich wrote:bedub1, a uniform distribution does not mean that every number appears the same number of times. It means that the probability of any number being a 1 is the same as it being a 2, etc., which is exactly what we have.
You made a comment earlier:The thing is is that they ARE EXACTLY THE SAME! Rolling dice is just a way to produce a list of random numbers.If you guys love this list full of random numbers so much, then next time you play risk in real life or maybe yahtzee, try to convince all your friends to give up on the dice and just use the list of random numbers instead. Try and convince them that it's the same.
Let's try this another way: Say you are playing Risk with your friends, and you record every dice thrown during the game. After the game, you look at your notes and see that there were a lot more 5's than 2's. Your friend, who's butt you just kicked, says "hey, no fair! The dice were not really random! I demand a rematch." I think we would all disagree with the friend, but since rolling dice is just a way to produce a random list, as is going to Random.org, this argument is the same as yours.
bedub1 wrote:After you and your friend collected that list, and realized there were more 5's than 2's, would you be willing to play another game using that list as the source for your dice? No, you would want to use a dice with an even distribution as your list.
bedub1 wrote:natty_dread wrote:Maybe we should use a pseudo random number generator to pick a spot from the true random number generator list for every dice roll and not read anything sequentially.
We are already doing that. You apparently missed lack's announcement about it.
No...he reads the next 4 numbers sequentially... and that file doesn't have an even distribution as it's random....so the single numbers we pick aren't random.
lackattack wrote:I have changed the way the dice work once again, it should now be theoretically impossible to cheat:
This is how the intensity cubes now work:
* We have a series of 50,000 true random numbers from random.org
* Each time the game engine processes an assault or auto-assault, it select a random spot in the series to read from using a pseudo-random computer function
* Each time the game engine generates a random intensity cube, the next number is read in sequence from the series (e.g. in a 3v1 attack 4 numbers are read sequentially)
* The series of 50,000 true random numbers from random.org is replaced every hour
bedub1 wrote:Think of it another way. Each dice has a uniform distribution, but the lists we get from random.org don't.
natty_dread wrote:bedub1 wrote:natty_dread wrote:Maybe we should use a pseudo random number generator to pick a spot from the true random number generator list for every dice roll and not read anything sequentially.
We are already doing that. You apparently missed lack's announcement about it.
No...he reads the next 4 numbers sequentially... and that file doesn't have an even distribution as it's random....so the single numbers we pick aren't random.lackattack wrote:I have changed the way the dice work once again, it should now be theoretically impossible to cheat:
This is how the intensity cubes now work:
* We have a series of 50,000 true random numbers from random.org
* Each time the game engine processes an assault or auto-assault, it select a random spot in the series to read from using a pseudo-random computer function
* Each time the game engine generates a random intensity cube, the next number is read in sequence from the series (e.g. in a 3v1 attack 4 numbers are read sequentially)
* The series of 50,000 true random numbers from random.org is replaced every hour
SEE? SEE?!?!?!? I bet you feel stupid right now.
carlpgoodrich wrote:I will try to explain this again using examples: lets say we want to flip a coin twice. The probability distribution is uniform (each flip has a 50% chance of being heads). The possible outcomes are HH, HT, TH, TT, each with a 25% chance of happening. There is no requirement that both come up once. Same logic applies of making a list of 50,000 random numbers between 1 and 6.
When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable, i.e., a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others.
bedub1 wrote:carlpgoodrich wrote:I will try to explain this again using examples: lets say we want to flip a coin twice. The probability distribution is uniform (each flip has a 50% chance of being heads). The possible outcomes are HH, HT, TH, TT, each with a 25% chance of happening. There is no requirement that both come up once. Same logic applies of making a list of 50,000 random numbers between 1 and 6.
I agree with you. But think of this. HH is a list of random coin flips. HT is the same. So are TH, and TT. But would you want to use TT as the list from which to draw? No, you can't, because the list isn't uniform, and thus any flips you draw from it won't be random, because there is 100% chance of getting a T and a 0% chance of getting an H.
Read this from random.org again:When discussing single numbers, a random number is one that is drawn from a set of possible values, each of which is equally probable, i.e., a uniform distribution. When discussing a sequence of random numbers, each number drawn must be statistically independent of the others.
So a random number must be drawn from a list with uniform distribution. IE You can use 123456 as a list to draw from, or 112233445566, but you can't use 11223445566. This distribution of the numbers has to be 1/6th.
To create a list of random numbers they must be statistically independent of each other. IE 123456 probably isn't random a list of random numbers, but 124435 might be.
I agree the list we get is random. But we can't draw from a list of random numbers, we have to draw randomly from a list with uniform distribution in order to get a random number. We don't want a list of random numbers, we want random numbers.
lackattack wrote:I'm going to take a shot at explaining this
bedub1, you feel that since the numbers are read from a list which may not have equal counts of 1,2,3 etc the source is not random, right?
Well don't think of that list as the source, because it isn't. The source is still random.org. The list is more like a "buffer" to temporarily hold the numbers before we use them. We do this because it is much more efficient to pre-generate the numbers in a batch.
Yes, the buffer won't have equal counts of 1,2,3 etc but that doesn't matter if you realize it is not the source. If you roll a 3v2, maybe God knows in advance that it will be 6,6,3 v 2,5. Does it make your roll less random because God knows the attacker will get two 6's? Of course not! Same logic applies if your rolls are generated in advance and temporarily stored in a buffer.
Granted, the list is not read from beginning to end like a real buffer, but I don't think that makes a difference.
I of course agree it would be nicer to generate each number of the fly and not pre-generate in batches, but that would be impossible for a website this big unless we used computer-generated pseudo-random numbers which would be a huge step backwards in my opinion. I think the current dice are indeed random and all the dice analyzer and streak analyzer data people are collecting will continue to prove that.
Random numbers cannot be picked randomly from a list of random numbers. Random numbers must be picked randomly from a list with uniform distribution.
Return to Announcement Archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users