why this thing is virtually impossible by Mur

Mur

123 / 7

23rd Dec 2016

24th Dec 2016

I suck at math, but according to my maths, it has a chance of 1/2 199 023 255 552, or 1/2^41 of sparking the final output. Includes pretty histogram and histogram generator. All credit for the gaussian distributor goes to samm9. Histogram plotter by me.

math icantbelieveinit gauss spark power electricity electronic electric ididntunderstood gaussian

Comments

• 

  muzau 23rd Dec 2016
  Since it ALWAYS goes to the bottom, it's simply a matter of which of the 48 it chooses. 1 in 48. So it is statistically likely that 1 in every 48 sparks will land on an output of your choosing with a certain % of error. for every additional 48 sparks that % is halved, so after 480 sparks, it is statistically impossible that a spark will not have reached the output you choose. You can test this actively.
• 

  muzau 23rd Dec 2016
  For your post in preticular there is simply a 1 in 48 chance that a spark will land on any given output. The fact people are ignoring is that the sparks make it to the bottom row 100% of the time, so there is no need to divide a bunch of extra times for all of the rows because that would imply that there is a chance the spark does not pass that row.
• 

  Mur 23rd Dec 2016
  @muzau: now I saw yor message, and yes, obviously every spark reaches the bottom. But I think you are over simplifying too, because the outputs in the middle have a much higher chance of output than the ones in the edges, because it's gaussian distribution. I also think it is not so simple to estimate when a given output will be sparked, because of the random nature of this. But well, as I said, I suck at math.
• 

  muzau 23rd Dec 2016
  the math below is the math for that post
• 

  muzau 23rd Dec 2016
  @mur, when I was saying adding more triangles, I meant like the triangles in the post that you based this off of
• 

  Mur 23rd Dec 2016
  @dodo_hacker, @Masterfox: yes, it is possible given enough time. It is also possible for it to happen in the first time or never happen, because its random. Also, it's very hard to tell how long it will take, because of the random nature of this. @ArsenicC: Yes, and I will remove this save if samm9 requests. @muzau: Interesting, I want to see your idea. But I think adding new triangles is just the same thing as adding new rows to the big triangle, that's why I just divided.
• 

  muzau 23rd Dec 2016
  That is, 1 in 82,944 sparks will reach the bottom in the original post. THIS is the point where you start factoring in FPS so that you can calculate how long it would take to spark 82,944 times. That number would tell you how often it was completed, and is much closer to several hours than days or years.
• 

  muzau 23rd Dec 2016
  So in your post, your triangle has 48 outputs in the BOTTOM row. every spark has a 100% chance to REACH THE BOTTOM ROW. which means for any given output there is a 1 in 48 chance of being sparked. -FREQUENCY- is NOT the same thing as -ODDS-. In the original post, the first triangle has 48 outputs, and the next three triangles each have 12. To find the ODDS of a spark reaching the bottom, you do 48 x 12 x 12 x 12; 82,944.
• 

  muzau 23rd Dec 2016
  People have been grossly over simplifying the math for this. The spark always makes it to the bottom. That means only the bottom row matters for calculating the odds. If you add more triangles to the bottom like the post this is based off, you simply multiply the odds of the first one by the odds of the bottom row of the second and so on. I'll look at this and do the math after posting this comment.
• 

  ArsenicC 23rd Dec 2016
  U COPIED!