impossible simple question

[Albertopenheimer]

how many times do u have to try the random numbers generator until theres a 100% chance that
two numbers (from -infinity to infinity) have the same value

technically 1 to the power of infinity * infinity

but infinity * infinity == infinity, so you are basically saying

1 to the power of infinity. But this doesnt work since the correct answer is technically

1 to the power of infinity * infinity

 

[Ibrahim997]

Braincels.is

 

[Skelly]

You’ll never be sure no matter how many times you try
If you had ten numbers, then you would need to pull eleven times before you’re sure that you have a repeat. The answer would be N+1
But since it’s an infinite set of numbers, you can’t add one to infinity so there’s no finite number of tries that guarantees a repeat

 

[Albertopenheimer]

You’ll never be sure no matter how many times you try
If you had ten numbers, then you would need to pull eleven times before you’re sure that you have a repeat. The answer would be N+1
But since it’s an infinite set of numbers, you can’t add one to infinity so there’s no finite number of tries that guarantees a repeat

but its technically possible so the chance cant be 0%

 

[MRHK_57]

If I rephrase your question, it is like every time I'm marking a specific point on a line, and want to find probability of marking a point twice.

Now every point has a zero length. So adding any finite amount of point will result in zero length as well.
So the chance is 0% for finite amount of steps.

Even if you include infinite steps, it won't help you.

You can only have countably infinite steps. But there are uncountably infinite real numbers. So even after infinite steps, your probability is still 0%.

Moreover, you don't need to take the entire number line for this to work. Considering real numbers between 0 and 1 wil do the job.

 

[Albertopenheimer]

If I rephrase your question, it is like every time I'm marking a specific point on a line, and want to find probability of marking a point twice.

Now every point has a zero length. So adding any finite amount of point will result in zero length as well.
So the chance is 0% for finite amount of steps.

Even if you include infinite steps, it won't help you.

You can only have countably infinite steps. But there are uncountably infinite real numbers. So even after infinite steps, your probability is still 0%.

Moreover, you don't need to take the entire number line for this to work. Considering real numbers between 0 and 1 wil do the job.

high iq post but
its technically possible so the chance cant be 0%
and btw:
1. the lenght of a point is 1 devided by infinity, cuz every point marks a number, so the lenght of it is the smallest number cuz its the most detailed one
2. the point maker has also a range of uncountable infinity

 

[MRHK_57]

high iq post but
its technically possible so the chance cant be 0%
and btw:
1. the lenght of a point is 1 devided by infinity, cuz every point marks a number, so the lenght of it is the smallest number cuz its the most detailed one
2. the point maker has also a range of uncountable infinity

Here's an important distinction, 0% probability doesn't necessarily mean impossible.

Here's how I like to think, probability indicates the ratio of successful to total attempts, if the number of attempts tends to Infinity.

You can technically hit a number twice. But repetition of this event has to be far in between. And the limiting value will eventually reach 0%.

Kinda like we all know result of a coin toss will be 50-50. But you are to do this by hand, it's quite unlikely you'll get exact 50-50 result without any sort of deviation. The more you toss the coin, it will go closer to 50%, but will take infinitely long to be exactly 50-50.

To address your second point, you stated the problem, "How many times do..." So I assumed the experiment will be iterative. Then you can assign natural numbers to your steps, so your steps can only be countably infinite.

But if you are to consider the axiom of choice and say chose all the numbers at once, then yes, my argument won't be true.

 

[Albertopenheimer]

But if you are to consider the axiom of choice and say chose all the numbers at once, then yes, my argument won't be true.

Thats what i meant

Here's an important distinction, 0% probability doesn't necessarily mean impossible.

It does. I think when u say 0% chance, you mean smt like 0.0000000001%. But 0 isnt the same like 0.0000000001 and its not nit-picking.

Kinda like we all know result of a coin toss will be 50-50. But you are to do this by hand, it's quite unlikely you'll get exact 50-50 result without any sort of deviation. The more you toss the coin, it will go closer to 50%, but will take infinitely long to be exactly 50-50.

I wont take infinitly long to be exactly 50-50
For example:
1 toss: image
2nd toss: number
ergo: 50-50

Is possible that it would be smt like 1432 - 1435. So its also possible that it will be smt like 1435 - 1435. After those tosses it may be again 1436 - 1435. And after maybe 10 tosses again 50 - 50 (1446 - 1446). But yh, it wont be per se 50-50. But facts that are "per se" dont apply in 100% of cases

 

[Vilsonicvs]

there can be different kinds of infinity, for example: an infinity made all positive numbers is a smaller infinity than all positive AND negative numbers, but they're both equally infinite. this is why infinity isn't considered a number, but a quanity.

 

[lnceI]

If it's impossible why ru asking it nigger

 

[Nature's Villain]

i thought computers can't generate random numbers, that's what computerniggers are always saying

 

[HeilAspergers]

i thought computers can't generate random numbers, that's what computerniggers are always saying

They practically aren't exactly random but they do the job, bigger issue is if you create a software that has a random number generator (simple) numbers need to be stored in a variable and no variable can be infinite, like for example in C# the biggest one is ulong and it ranges from 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, so in order for you to be sure they 100% overlap with some other number it needs to be Maxvalue of ulong + 1 times.

 

[Emba]

Fascinating

 

[Albertopenheimer]

They practically aren't exactly random but they do the job, bigger issue is if you create a software that has a random number generator (simple) numbers need to be stored in a variable and no variable can be infinite, like for example in C# the biggest one is ulong and it ranges from 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615, so in order for you to be sure they 100% overlap with some other number it needs to be Maxvalue of ulong + 1 times.

Its called pseudo-random btw

 

[Extern]

Infinity squared different from infinity doe

Fascinating

 

[Sewer Koala]

i thought computers can't generate random numbers, that's what computerniggers are always saying

 

[Emba]

Infinity squared different from infinity doe

Much excitement!