- #1
signerror
- 174
- 3
Make sure it is really random. No cheating!
jimmysnyder said:Before I vote, I would like to clear up one thing. Is 18 a random number?
I remember hearing that you can tell the difference between a sequence of 1's and 0's generated by a pseudo-random generator, and one generated by a person. Apparently, when people generate a sequence, they avoid long runs.DaveC426913 said:I am going to bet that you will find a non-random distribution. There will be a statistically significant lack of hits at the ends as well as at the middle, resulting in a double-humped graph.
When asked to choose a number between 1 and 10, a more-than-average number of people will choose 3 or 7 because, psychologically, those numbers are more "hidden".
DaveC426913 said:I am going to bet that you will find a non-random distribution. There will be a statistically significant lack of hits at the ends as well as at the middle, resulting in a double-humped graph.
When asked to choose a number between 1 and 10, a more-than-average number of people will choose 3 or 7 because, psychologically, those numbers are more "hidden".
Moonbear said:Can you really "choose" a random number?
TheStatutoryApe said:I closed my eyes moved the cursor around in the vicinity of the numbers and then clicked. It took a couple tries.
DaveC426913 said:I am going to bet that you will find a non-random distribution. There will be a statistically significant lack of hits at the ends as well as at the middle, resulting in a double-humped graph.
When asked to choose a number between 1 and 10, a more-than-average number of people will choose 3 or 7 because, psychologically, those numbers are more "hidden".
Guilty.Moonbear said:I would predict that if you put this poll up on any other forum aside from PF, that is precisely what you would see. I think that the folks here at PF are too aware of these patterns and will actually try to break them.
The Amazing Schmendrolog...
This Polish slide rule (manufactured circa 1973) featured such groundbreaking slide rule innovations as the 'RND' scale (random number generator) and the famous blank area on the back for writing intermediate values and phone numbers.
In fact, this rule was the first to feature reverse polish notation, an important step in modern computing technology.
I did the same thing and ended up clicking on the advertisements. :shy:TheStatutoryApe said:I closed my eyes moved the cursor around in the vicinity of the numbers and then clicked. It took a couple tries.
drizzle said:can I ask, what's the point of this thread?
Borek said:No point IMHO.
No idea what should I vote for. I like 7 as well, but - as I like it - it is not random.
lisab said:Well I don't know what the OP's intent was, but for me, it's just pure, pointless, geeky entertainment.
Moonbear said:I would predict that if you put this poll up on any other forum aside from PF, that is precisely what you would see. I think that the folks here at PF are too aware of these patterns and will actually try to break them. I'm curious to see what pattern might instead emerge...maybe the mirror image of what you were predicting.
1 : 4 0
2 : 1 1
3 : 0 2
4 : 3 1
5 : 2 3
6 : 3 3
7 : 7 5
8 : 1 3
9 : 1 5
10 : 2 0
11 : 1 2
12 : 1 2
13 : 2 2
14 : 1 4
15 : 1 2
16 : 2 1
17 : 3 1
18 : 4 2
19 : 1 1
20 : 2 2
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
const int N = 42;
int freq[20] = {0};
srand(time(0));
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
freq[ rand() % 20 ] ++;
}
for(int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
cout << (i+1) << " : " << freq[i] << endl;
}
return 0;
}
In[1] := RandomChoice[Range[20]]
Out[1] := 13
AUMathTutor said:Ironically, the human one seems to be more "random" than the pseudorandom one.
This leads me to think that people are cheating.
flatmaster said:Mathematica is Unlucky!
RandomInteger[20]
Floor[20 Random[]]+1