On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 21:39, Benedict Verhegghe <bver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I used a brute force method to check the probability. Counted the number > of triples in 600 random numbers 0-9, repeated that 10000 times and took > the mean: 5.99 > So it looks like Chris's number is more accurate.
Calling my number "more accurate" is missing the point that all the figures given are in basically the same ballpark. :) We're not trying to see whether accounting data is accurate - we're trying to see if random numbers are plausible. So there's definitely going to be SOME variance, and all we're trying to do is get a broad idea of what "plausible" means here. But I do very much appreciate you throwing more data at this. The thing to be careful of, though, is that you might well be using the exact same RNG that the OP is wanting to test, which would end up merely proving that the OP's data is typical for this RNG. But if you used SystemRandom, then it is definitely of value. ChrisA _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/SOJ76QIAGAFVGI445XBTWA6M5NRRH3PI/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
