WinkAllKerb'' Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 ... } there's always smaller <=> there's always bigger { ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) ay yo, for anyone trying to "visualize" the 4th dimension, treat it like time, works wonders looks weird though Edited July 19, 2019 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Aperture Science said: ay yo, for anyone trying to "visualize" the 4th dimension, treat it like time, works wonders Next problem is: which one is the 4th? Edited July 19, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 13 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Next problem is: which one is the 4th? you've made better free-rep posts than this before kerviloid, this one wasn't really funny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 (edited) The chance of two people picking the same random number is zero. Also, every number is outrageously large. Edited July 20, 2019 by cubinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzgy Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 1 hour ago, cubinator said: The chance of two people picking the same random number is zero. Also, every number is outrageously large. Not true. Had a game called "what are the odds" where basically some one asked what the odds were that the second person did something as a bet. Someone then gave the odds (like 1 in a 1000) then both people picked a number between 1 and whatever the second number was. If they picked the same number, the second person had to do the thing. One round had those 1 in a thousand odds, and both picked 6. Some numbers are more likely to be picked than others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 Just now, qzgy said: Not true. Had a game called "what are the odds" where basically some one asked what the odds were that the second person did something as a bet. Someone then gave the odds (like 1 in a 1000) then both people picked a number between 1 and whatever the second number was. If they picked the same number, the second person had to do the thing. One round had those 1 in a thousand odds, and both picked 6. Some numbers are more likely to be picked than others. Right, but that's when you put a bound on the range of numbers to pick. If you go -INF to +INF, every number will be someplace very far from 0. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzgy Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 18 minutes ago, cubinator said: Right, but that's when you put a bound on the range of numbers to pick. If you go -INF to +INF, every number will be someplace very far from 0. Right, but I'd still argue even then people tend to gravitate towards certain integer numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 Afair, when random people get asked for a random number, they usually answer: "One". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 3 hours ago, qzgy said: Right, but I'd still argue even then people tend to gravitate towards certain integer numbers. That's because people are terible random number generators. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 (edited) I believe, if ask them to do that for money if the number is unique, the numbers will get much more random. They should extend mathematics with "paid result" / "unpaid result" depending on a "cash function". Edited July 20, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: Afair, when random people get asked for a random number, they usually answer: "One". That study was flawed as they only asked one person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 14 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said: That study was flawed as they only asked one person. They asked a lot of them. The key part is: don't ask for "a random number", ask them for just "a number". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superfluous J Posted July 20, 2019 Share Posted July 20, 2019 3 hours ago, kerbiloid said: They asked a lot of them. The key part is: don't ask for "a random number", ask them for just "a number". It was a joke, because you said that if you ask random people for a random number they'll say "one." I'm not saying it was a good joke or anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrandedonEarth Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 On 7/18/2019 at 9:40 PM, Aperture Science said: ay yo, for anyone trying to "visualize" the 4th dimension, treat it like time, works wonders looks weird though I tend to look at dimensions past the third as a co-ordinate system, which works well with time. What is/are the conditions at x, y, z, t? Fifth dimension would be which universe in the multiverse? etc... Just add another co-ordinate axis "normal" to the rest as you go up the dimensions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSEP Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 20 hours ago, Shpaget said: That's because people are terible random number generators. I just tried to think of a random number after i read that. 365 was the first thing that came to mind Yup, humans, or at least myself am terrible at generating random numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, StrandedonEarth said: Fifth dimension would be which universe in the multiverse? The 5th is a sequence of you's, trying to imagine the 4th one as a sequence of 3. 4 hours ago, NSEP said: I just tried to think of a random number after i read that. 365 was the first thing that came to mind Yup, humans, or at least myself am terrible at generating random numbers. But if ask you to sell a random number for 1000 USD, it would be 285764954386. If pay 10 USD, probably something like 35254. For 1 mln you would probably generate a note book of digits. So the cash function dramatically affects the calculation results. (What do the Bayesians say now?) Edited July 21, 2019 by kerbiloid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinkAllKerb'' Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 (edited) "n+1+1+1+1+etc."-dimensionnal stuff could be painfull for somes brains ya know ? Edited July 21, 2019 by WinkAllKerb'' *in / out* pffttt & pfttt & romlaglog &/or ramloglag i should find something for that one too but it's induced passively by the first one so no real reason after all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubinator Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 8 hours ago, WinkAllKerb'' said: "n+1+1+1+1+etc."-dimensionnal stuff could be painfull for somes brains ya know ? Just wait till you hear about 1+1-1+1-1+1-... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinkAllKerb'' Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 54 minutes ago, cubinator said: Just wait till you hear about 1+1-1+1-1+1-... already parsed wich i why xDr ; ; ; { § Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, cubinator said: Just wait till you hear about 1+1-1+1-1+1-... At least that one is intuitive. This one is not, and I'm convinced that it's wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_⋯ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Shpaget said: it's wrong: It's not wrong. It's mathemagic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinkAllKerb'' Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: It's not wrong. It's mathemagic. i that agree :3 :3 :3https://www.facebook.com/NotThereQuiteYet/ kinda like planning the earthquake to come for the next 10 years to come or meteo ahead for a whole years ; ) good luck ; ) Edited July 21, 2019 by WinkAllKerb'' meanwhile some say they can feel "disturbance in the force" time to time weird isn't it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shpaget Posted July 21, 2019 Share Posted July 21, 2019 2 hours ago, kerbiloid said: It's not wrong. It's mathemagic. It's actually semantics, as in "Let's change the meaning of the equals symbol and see what happens.". 1+2+3... = -1/12 only if = doesn't mean equal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerbiloid Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Shpaget said: 1+2+3... = -1/12 only if = doesn't mean equal. If redefine "+" and numbers, they can achieve even greater results. "the owls are not what they seem" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.