Difference between revisions of "Talk:Guides/Probability"
m |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
if(my_rand(20)==2) | if(my_rand(20)==2) | ||
Ent said a few posts down, that that's actually not 5%, because it chooses from the range 0 <= x <= 20. So, since 0 is included, it's 1/21, or 4.8%.. Source: http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=39550&view=findpost&p=408818 | Ent said a few posts down, that that's actually not 5%, because it chooses from the range 0 <= x <= 20. So, since 0 is included, it's 1/21, or 4.8%.. Source: http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=39550&view=findpost&p=408818 | ||
| + | -Ilobypie | ||
| + | |||
| + | Oh ok, thanks, I'll change it accordingly. I just remembered that there had been that post about it, didn't re-read the whole discussion. Thanks for the hint. --[[User:Ermabwed|Ermabwed]] 13:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- I just noticed that the total items formula is wrong, yields more than 100%, will re-do the math where I can have a better look at it. --[[User:Ermabwed|Ermabwed]] 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | -- ok, np/(1-2/3(1.p)) should be correct now. the old one was basically missing the p in the numerator. Theory says the formula is strictly increasing in p and yields n for p=1. Hooray. --[[User:Ermabwed|Ermabwed]] 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 21:37, 17 June 2008
-- Meep, just wanted to let you know about this: if(my_rand(20)==2) Ent said a few posts down, that that's actually not 5%, because it chooses from the range 0 <= x <= 20. So, since 0 is included, it's 1/21, or 4.8%.. Source: http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=39550&view=findpost&p=408818 -Ilobypie
Oh ok, thanks, I'll change it accordingly. I just remembered that there had been that post about it, didn't re-read the whole discussion. Thanks for the hint. --Ermabwed 13:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
-- I just noticed that the total items formula is wrong, yields more than 100%, will re-do the math where I can have a better look at it. --Ermabwed 18:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
-- ok, np/(1-2/3(1.p)) should be correct now. the old one was basically missing the p in the numerator. Theory says the formula is strictly increasing in p and yields n for p=1. Hooray. --Ermabwed 21:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
