The official vote balance topic

@Gąska the whole point of (most) random number generators is that their results are uniformly distributed across a given range. If you're breaking the range into discrete, equallysized subsets, they have an equal chance of occurring; given enough samples, the results will converge like mine did.
It doesn't matter whether the numbers are pseudorandom or "really" random; uniform distribution is typically part of the definition of "good" randomness.

@anotherusername there's "good" randomness, and "real" randomness. And in "good" randomness, you have statistically "good" randomness (linear or bell curve distribution), cryptographically "good" randomness (no predictability and low repeats), and gaming "good" randomness (which is specifically designed to guarantee each possible result to happen in relatively short time, so an event with 70% chance of happening observably happens 70% times in a single session). And "real" randomness rarely meets any of those "good" randomness standards.

This post is deleted!

@anotherusername Not really. That's the entire point of probability distributions.
For example, a random bit generator can generate 0s with 80% probability and 1s with 20% probability. It's still impossible to predict when the next 1 will happen so it's random.

@anonymous234 none of what you just said contradicts anything in my post.

FWP: I want to upvote but the post is deleted

@Yamikuronue that should be against the rules, like it is in the Likes topic.
FWP: my script probably ... did something, before he managed to delete the post. But I can't tell what it did, because the post is deleted.

@anotherusername I can still see the post, though. My other script cached it.
I just can't see the votes.

@anotherusername said in The official vote balance topic:
I'm not sure what the mathematical notation for random is.
It depends upon the distribution from which you draw. Saying "random" just means that you don't know how predict the outcome.

note to self: stop posting in this topic, it generates a lot of notifications....

@anotherusername said in The official vote balance topic:
As the number of votes given goes to infinity, the number of upvotes and downvotes given will approach parity.
.. is false, but
@anotherusername said in The official vote balance topic:
the limit of the ratio between upvotes and downvotes is not indeterminate.
is true.
The magic phrase to google for here is "random walk". This sort of thing arises naturally in some contexts in physics; IIRC the expected distance from 0 after N steps grows like the square root of N. (It follows that the ratio of upvotes to downvotes converges to 1, as you would expect.)

This is more fun that I thought it would be

@Scarlet_Manuka they approach parity, in terms of the fraction of the total that they represent. You're correct, though, that you cannot expect them to be equal in number.
In other words, while you can't expect (up  down) to go to 0, you can expect (up  down) / (up + down) to go to 0.

@anotherusername Yes, but the original quote to which I was replying explicitly said "the number of upvotes and downvotes given will approach parity".
I did agree that
the ratio of upvotes to downvotes converges to 1, as you would expect.
which is the same as your statement that (up  down) / (up + down) goes to 0.

It's all balanced. I suppose I'd better give people something to do

Ahh, a whole thread with no post with 0 net votes. Such a beautiful sight...

@cark the funny thung is, as soon as you posted it, it stopped being true.

@Gąska What did you say? Sorry, couldn't hear you over the sound of TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS