Re: Testing (sorry)

On 2024-02-19 11:38:54 -0500, Thomas Passin via Python-list wrote: > On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: > > On 2024-02-19, Thomas Passin wrote: > > > > About 24 hours later, all of my posts (and the confirmation e-mails) > > > > all showed up in a burst at the same time on

Re: Testing (sorry)

On 2/19/2024 11:55 AM, Skip Montanaro wrote: Here is a typical bounce message that I get: mailto:python-list@python.org>>: host mail.python.org [188.166.95.178] said: 450-4.3.2      Service currently unavailable 450 4.3.2 Some time after I get on

Re: Testing (sorry)

> > Here is a typical bounce message that I get: > > : host mail.python.org[188.166.95.178] said: > 450-4.3.2 > Service currently unavailable 450 4.3.2 > > Some time after I get one of these messages I re-send the post. Usually > it gets through then. > Looks kinda like greylisting to me. I'

Re: Testing (sorry)

On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: On 2024-02-19, Thomas Passin wrote: About 24 hours later, all of my posts (and the confirmation e-mails) all showed up in a burst at the same time on two different unrelated e-mail accounts. I still have no clue what was going on...

Re: Testing (sorry)

On 2024-02-19, Thomas Passin wrote: >> About 24 hours later, all of my posts (and the confirmation e-mails) >> all showed up in a burst at the same time on two different unrelated >> e-mail accounts. >> >> I still have no clue what was going on... > > Sometimes a post of mine will not show up fo

Re: Testing (sorry)

Hellow Grant, On Sat, 2024-02-17 at 18:54 -0600, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: > > Today I noticed that nothing I've posted to python-list in past 3 > weeks has shown up on the list. I don't know how to troubleshoot this > other than sending test messages.  Obviously, if this shows up on t

Re: Testing (sorry)

On 2/18/2024 6:09 PM, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: On 2024-02-18, Peter J. Holzer via Python-list wrote: [Replying to the list *and* Grant] On 2024-02-17 19:38:04 -0500, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: Today I noticed that nothing I've posted to python-list in past 3 weeks has sh

Re: Testing (sorry)

I can't explain the delays, but will note that the gate-news program on the server runs every 5 minutes via cron. There are multiple moving parts in the overall system. You'll probably get a more useful answer from postmas...@python.org. Skip -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-lis

Re: Testing (sorry)

On 19/02/24 12:09, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: ... But posts to the list still seemed to vanish into the ether while emails from both accounts reached other destinations without delay, During this process a number of posts from other users did appear in the list archive and at at _one_

Re: Testing (sorry)

On 2024-02-18, Peter J. Holzer via Python-list wrote: > [Replying to the list *and* Grant] > > On 2024-02-17 19:38:04 -0500, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: >> Today I noticed that nothing I've posted to python-list in past 3 >> weeks has shown up on the list. > > January 29th, AFAICS. And en

Re: Testing (sorry)

We see you Peter AK On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 2:41 PM Peter J. Holzer via Python-list < python-list@python.org> wrote: > [Replying to the list *and* Grant] > > On 2024-02-17 19:38:04 -0500, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: > > Today I noticed that nothing I've posted to python-list in past 3 >

Re: Testing (sorry)

[Replying to the list *and* Grant] On 2024-02-17 19:38:04 -0500, Grant Edwards via Python-list wrote: > Today I noticed that nothing I've posted to python-list in past 3 > weeks has shown up on the list. January 29th, AFAICS. And end of december before that. > I don't know how to troubleshoot th

Re: Testing list sequence question -- thanks for the info

On 2023-03-05, Gabor Urban wrote: > Upgrading our Python to 3.7 seems to be out of question at the moment. Using an OrderedDict doesn't work for you? -- Grant -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Testing list sequence question

On 3/4/2023 1:42 PM, Roel Schroeven wrote: Thomas Passin schreef op 4/03/2023 om 18:49: On 3/4/2023 11:38 AM, Gabor Urban wrote: >   Hi guys, > > I have a strange problem that I do not understand. I am testing function > which returns a dictionary. The code should ensure that the keys of the >

Re: Testing list sequence question

On Sun, 5 Mar 2023 at 05:44, Roel Schroeven wrote: > > Thomas Passin schreef op 4/03/2023 om 18:49: > > On 3/4/2023 11:38 AM, Gabor Urban wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > I have a strange problem that I do not understand. I am testing function > > > which returns a dictionary. The code should e

Re: Testing list sequence question

Thomas Passin schreef op 4/03/2023 om 18:49: On 3/4/2023 11:38 AM, Gabor Urban wrote: > Hi guys, > > I have a strange problem that I do not understand. I am testing function > which returns a dictionary. The code should ensure that the keys of the > dictionary are generated in a given order.

Re: Testing list sequence question

On 3/4/2023 11:38 AM, Gabor Urban wrote: Hi guys, I have a strange problem that I do not understand. I am testing function which returns a dictionary. The code should ensure that the keys of the dictionary are generated in a given order. I am testing the function with the standard unittest mo

Re: Testing list sequence question

Gabor Urban schreef op 4/03/2023 om 17:38: Hi guys, I have a strange problem that I do not understand. I am testing function which returns a dictionary. The code should ensure that the keys of the dictionary are generated in a given order. I am testing the function with the standard unittest

Re: Testing the data type of a value

Luuk writes: ... > Maybe i should have asked this: > > What is the difference between 'type(5)==int'  and 'isinstance(5,int)' > > and, if there is no difference why did someone invent 'isinstance()' ... Look: Python 3.6.6 (default, Aug 13 2018, 18:24:23) [GCC 4.8.5 20150623 (Red Hat 4.8.5-

Re: Testing the data type of a value

Luuk writes: > On 12-5-2019 16:07, Piet van Oostrum wrote: >> Luuk writes: >> >>> After thinking about this, (i am prettry new to python), i was doing this: >>> >> print(type(5),type(int),type(5)==type(int),type(5)==int) >>> False True >>> >>> Can someone explain why type(5)==int evalu

Re: Testing the data type of a value

On 12-5-2019 16:07, Piet van Oostrum wrote: Luuk writes: After thinking about this, (i am prettry new to python), i was doing this: print(type(5),type(int),type(5)==type(int),type(5)==int) False True Can someone explain why type(5)==int evaluates to True ? print(int) The valu

Re: Testing the data type of a value

Luuk writes: > > After thinking about this, (i am prettry new to python), i was doing this: > print(type(5),type(int),type(5)==type(int),type(5)==int) > False True > > Can someone explain why type(5)==int evaluates to True ? > >>> print(int) The value of int is the class int, which

Re: Testing the data type of a value

On 12-5-2019 10:16, Luuk wrote: On 12-5-2019 09:27, binoythomas1...@gmail.com wrote: When I run the following code, I get the following output: print(type(5)) class 'int' Next, I try to compare the data-type of 5 with the earlier output, I get no output: if type(5) == "": print("I

Re: Testing the data type of a value

binoythomas1...@gmail.com writes: > When I run the following code, I get the following output: print(type(5)) > class 'int' > > Next, I try to compare the data-type of 5 with the earlier output, I > get no output: if type(5) == "": > print("Integer") > > Why isn't this working? A

Re: Testing the data type of a value

On 12-5-2019 09:27, binoythomas1...@gmail.com wrote: When I run the following code, I get the following output: print(type(5)) class 'int' Next, I try to compare the data-type of 5 with the earlier output, I get no output: if type(5) == "": print("Integer") Why isn't this working?

Re: testing code

On Sunday, 8 July 2018 12:42:07 UTC+5:30, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > Am 08.07.18 um 06:21 schrieb Sharan Basappa: > > sorry. there was a copy paste error when i posted. I pasted test_2.py for > > both the files: > > > > here are the files again. The issue remains. > > > output: > > %run "D:/

Re: testing code

Am 08.07.18 um 06:21 schrieb Sharan Basappa: sorry. there was a copy paste error when i posted. I pasted test_2.py for both the files: here are the files again. The issue remains. output: %run "D:/Projects/Initiatives/machine learning/programs/test_2_test.py" 30 Jim spotted it... '%run' i

Re: testing code

On Sunday, 8 July 2018 11:52:39 UTC+5:30, Jim Lee wrote: > On 07/07/18 21:21, Sharan Basappa wrote: > > > > sorry. there was a copy paste error when i posted. I pasted test_2.py for > > both the files: > > > > here are the files again. The issue remains. > > [...] > > > > output: > > %run "D:/Pro

Re: testing code

On 07/07/18 21:21, Sharan Basappa wrote: sorry. there was a copy paste error when i posted. I pasted test_2.py for both the files: here are the files again. The issue remains. [...] output: %run "D:/Projects/Initiatives/machine learning/programs/test_2_test.py" 30 [11:24 PM jlee@kerndev ~

Re: testing code

On Saturday, 7 July 2018 18:22:23 UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Sharan Basappa > wrote: > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 09:22:31 UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Sharan Basappa > >> wrote: > >> > Please let me know if the foll

Re: testing code

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 10:02 PM, Sharan Basappa wrote: > On Friday, 6 July 2018 09:22:31 UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Sharan Basappa >> wrote: >> > Please let me know if the following understanding of mine is correct. >> > I need to put the program code in

Re: testing code

On Friday, 6 July 2018 09:22:31 UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Sharan Basappa > wrote: > > Please let me know if the following understanding of mine is correct. > > I need to put the program code in a separate file and organize every > > executable code in som

Re: testing code

On Friday, 6 July 2018 09:22:31 UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Sharan Basappa > wrote: > > Please let me know if the following understanding of mine is correct. > > I need to put the program code in a separate file and organize every > > executable code in som

Re: testing code

On Friday, 6 July 2018 09:32:08 UTC+5:30, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 05Jul2018 19:56, Sharan Basappa wrote: > >I have implemented my first program in python that uses ML to do some > >classification task. The whole code is in a single file currently. > >It contains executable code as well as fu

Re: testing code

On 05Jul2018 19:56, Sharan Basappa wrote: I have implemented my first program in python that uses ML to do some classification task. The whole code is in a single file currently. It contains executable code as well as functions. I presume when you write "executable code" you mean some kind of

Re: testing code

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Sharan Basappa wrote: > Please let me know if the following understanding of mine is correct. > I need to put the program code in a separate file and organize every > executable code in some form of function. If any code exists outside of > function then it is no

Re: Testing whether the VPN is running?

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:26:58AM +, Adam Funk wrote: >> I'd like to test (inside a python 3 program) whether the VPN is >> running or not. The only thing I can think of so far is to use >> subprocess to run the 'ifconfig'

Re: Testing whether the VPN is running?

On 2016-02-23, Cameron Simpson wrote: > On 18Feb2016 10:03, Adam Funk wrote: >>On 2016-02-18, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: >>> I think that the psutil modul could be better for you for this >>> task: >>> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/psutil/ >>> >>> and see the "Network" section. >> >>if 'tun0' in psutil.

Re: Testing whether the VPN is running?

Cameron Simpson: > You might also want to check that the interface is up. > > My personal hack (not for a VPN, but for "being online", which turns my ssh > tunnels on and off) is to look in the output > of "netstat -rn" for a default route. This may imply that an alternative test > for you is t

Re: Testing whether the VPN is running?

On 18Feb2016 10:03, Adam Funk wrote: On 2016-02-18, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: I think that the psutil modul could be better for you for this task: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/psutil/ and see the "Network" section. if 'tun0' in psutil.net_if_addrs(): # vpn is running Brilliant! I've used psut

Re: Testing whether the VPN is running?

On 2016-02-18, Ervin Hegedüs wrote: > Hi Adam, > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:26:58AM +, Adam Funk wrote: >> I'd like to test (inside a python 3 program) whether the VPN is >> running or not. The only thing I can think of so far is to use >> subprocess to run the 'ifconfig' command, then chec

Re: Testing whether the VPN is running?

Hi Adam, On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:26:58AM +, Adam Funk wrote: > I'd like to test (inside a python 3 program) whether the VPN is > running or not. The only thing I can think of so far is to use > subprocess to run the 'ifconfig' command, then check its output for > 'tun0'. Is there a better

Re: Testing random

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 8:04 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2015-06-17, Mark Lawrence wrote: > >> An alternative explanation is that he's just a plain, old fashioned >> troll, as pointed out by Denis McMahon some weeks ago. Now what is >> the probability of that? :) > > Looks to me like it's asym

Re: Testing random

On 2015-06-17, Mark Lawrence wrote: > An alternative explanation is that he's just a plain, old fashioned > troll, as pointed out by Denis McMahon some weeks ago. Now what is > the probability of that? :) Looks to me like it's asymptotically approaching 1. I'm going to stop paying attention n

Re: Testing random

In a message of Wed, 17 Jun 2015 22:47:37 +1000, "Steven D'Aprano" writes: >There are magicians who are capable of forcing coins to land the required >way up, and somebody once built a machine capable of tossing a coin with >the precise equal force and velocity every single time. Dice are rarely >u

Re: Testing random

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 08:33 pm, Laura Creighton wrote: > Stick to dice. Stay away from children. One thing we know of, for sure, > is that certain breeding pairs are more likely to produce males, and > others are more likely to produce females. We will ignore those born who > are of indeterminat

Re: Testing random

Stick to dice. Stay away from children. One thing we know of, for sure, is that certain breeding pairs are more likely to produce males, and others are more likely to produce females. We will ignore those born who are of indeterminate sex, for this discussion. In human beings, as well as a who

Re: Testing random

On Wednesday 17 Jun 2015 09:30 CEST, Tim Golden wrote: > On 17/06/2015 08:22, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: >> Am 17.06.15 um 08:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >>> 3. >>> >>> >>> (Whereas I predict tha

Re: Testing random

In a message of Tue, 16 Jun 2015 16:58:26 -0600, Ian Kelly writes: >On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, wrote: >> On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 3:01:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >> wrote: >>> This should give you pause: In real mathematics, events with zero >>> probability can occur. >> >>

Re: Testing random

On 17/06/2015 02:01, Chris Angelico wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM, wrote: Yes, we all know what the gambler's fallacy is, but that's not what anyone is arguing. The only instance of gambler's fallacy I'm seeing here is "PointedEars didn't understand the last dozen emails, so he's

Re: Testing random

On 17/06/2015 08:22, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > Am 17.06.15 um 08:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: >> 3. >> >> >> (Whereas I predict that the ignorant will see the correct answer to >> quest

Re: Testing random

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 5:22 PM, Christian Gollwitzer wrote: > I'v been to the UK recently for cycling holidays. A nightmare! So many > ignorant people all driving on the wrong side of the road! You might argue that you drive on the right side of the road, but if you call what British people driv

Re: Testing random

Am 17.06.15 um 08:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn: 3. (Whereas I predict that the ignorant will see the correct answer to question 3 as proof of the correctness of their misconception.) I'v

Re: Testing random

MRAB wrote: > On 2015-06-17 00:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Learn probability theory, and use a dictionary in Python when you want to >> count random hits. >> > I think that different people are talking about different things in > this thread. I think that you, too, do not know what yo

Re: Testing random

Ned Batchelder writes: > Thomas: let's say I generate streams of N digits drawn randomly from > 0-9. I then consider the probability of a zero *never appearing once* > in my stream. Let's call that P(N). Do you agree that as N > increases, P(N) decreases? In probability theory, that could be p

Re: Testing random

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 01:45:27 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > The > probability of only having sons is _not_ greater than that of having > sons and one daughter or vice-versa. Take a family of four children. We can enumerate all the possibilities, using S for son and D for daughter, the

Re: Testing random

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015 13:48:04 -0700, Ned Batchelder wrote: > I apologize, I'm sure I've been using the mathematical terms > imprecisely. We are all intelligent people, so I still believe we > disagree because we are talking about different things. Neil, I believe that your actual mistake is assumi

Re: Testing random

On 06/16/2015 06:01 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: The only instance of gambler's fallacy I'm seeing here is "PointedEars didn't understand the last dozen emails, so he's due to understand the next one". I've given up trying to explain. +1 QotW -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-lis

Re: Testing random

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM, wrote: > Yes, we all know what the gambler's fallacy is, but that's not what anyone is > arguing. The only instance of gambler's fallacy I'm seeing here is "PointedEars didn't understand the last dozen emails, so he's due to understand the next one". I've given

Re: Testing random

On 2015-06-17 00:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: Ned Batchelder wrote: On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: Your programmatic "proof", as all the other intuitive-empirical "proofs", and all the other counter-arguments posted before in this thread

Re: Testing random

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 4:48:36 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Batchelder wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > > wrote: > >> Your programmatic "proof", as all the other intuitive-empirical "proofs", > >> and all the other co

Re: Testing random

Ned Batchelder wrote: > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> Your programmatic "proof", as all the other intuitive-empirical "proofs", >> and all the other counter-arguments posted before in this thread, is >> flawed. As others have pointed out at th

Re: Testing random

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 6:01:06 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Batchelder wrote: > > > [...] > > This is done empirically, by producing `nseq` sequences of > > `nrolls` rolls of the die. Each sequence is examined to > > see if it has a zero. The total number of

Re: Testing random

On Jun 16, 2015 4:58 PM, "Ian Kelly" wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 3:01:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> This should give you pause: In real mathematics, events with zero > >> probability can occur. > > > > Nobody will disag

Re: Testing random

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 4:30 PM, wrote: > On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 3:01:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> This should give you pause: In real mathematics, events with zero >> probability can occur. > > Nobody will disagree with that. The probability of me winning the lotter

Re: Testing random

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 3:01:06 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Batchelder wrote: > > > [...] > > This is done empirically, by producing `nseq` sequences of > > `nrolls` rolls of the die. Each sequence is examined to > > see if it has a zero. The total number of

Re: Testing random

Ned Batchelder wrote: > […] > This is done empirically, by producing `nseq` sequences of > `nrolls` rolls of the die. Each sequence is examined to > see if it has a zero. The total number of no-zero > sequences divided `nseq` is the probability. No, it is not. It is the relativ

Re: Testing random

On Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 3:21:46 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Batchelder wrote: > > > You aren't agreeing because you are arguing about different things. > > Thomas is talking about the relative probability of sequences of digits. > > There is no such thing as “relative pr

Re: Testing random

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015, at 15:18, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > There is no such thing as “relative probability”, except perhaps in > popular- > scientific material and bad translations. You might mean relative > _frequency_, but I was not talking about that specifically. The probability of o

Re: Testing random

Ned Batchelder wrote: > You aren't agreeing because you are arguing about different things. > Thomas is talking about the relative probability of sequences of digits. There is no such thing as “relative probability”, except perhaps in popular- scientific material and bad translations. You might

Re: Testing random

On 12/06/2015 23:00, Ian Kelly wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: Ian Kelly wrote: The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing only 1s are *not* equal. There i

Re: Testing random

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 3:12:26 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > > > [...] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...] wrote: > >> Ian Kelly wrote: > >>> The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability > >>> of a sequence containing all nine numbers and

Re: Testing random

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, at 18:09, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Do you deny that “123456789” *is* “a sequence containing all nine > numbers” Do you deny that "123456798" *is* "a sequence containing all nine numbers"? Does this mean that "123456789" *is* "123456798" by the transitive property?

Re: Testing random

On Jun 12, 2015 4:16 PM, "Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn" wrote: > > Ian Kelly wrote: > > > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote: > >> Ian Kelly wrote: > >>> The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability > >>> of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containin

Re: Testing random

Ian Kelly wrote: > […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn […] wrote: >> Ian Kelly wrote: >>> The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability >>> of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing >>> only 1s are *not* equal.d >> There is a contradiction in that statem

Re: Testing random

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >> The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability >> of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing >> only 1s are *not* equal. > > There is a contradiction in that st

Re: Testing random

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015, at 17:32, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > > > The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability > > of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing > > only 1s are *not* equal. > > There is a contradiction in that

Re: Testing random

On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 23:32:31 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ian Kelly wrote: > >> The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability >> of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing >> only 1s are *not* equal. > > There is a contradiction in th

Re: Testing random

Ian Kelly wrote: > The probability of 123456789 and 1 are equal. The probability > of a sequence containing all nine numbers and a sequence containing > only 1s are *not* equal. There is a contradiction in that statement. Can you find it? -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please d

Re: Testing random

sohcahto...@gmail.com writes: [...] > Here's where I think you two are having such a huge disagreement. > Does order matter? It depends what you're pulling random numbers out > for. > > The odds of seeing 2 1 are also only 1/36. But if order doesn't > matter in your application, then 1 2 is equ

Re: Testing random

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015, at 13:03, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > This is _not_ a lottery box; you put the ball with the number on it *back > into the box* after you have drawn it and before you draw a new one. Yes, but getting a 2, putting it back, and getting a 1 is just as good as getting a 1

Re: Testing random

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: >>> Jussi Piitulainen wrote: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: > 8 3 6 3 1 2 6 8 2 1 6. There are more than four hundred thousand ways to get th

Re: Testing random

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:06:49 AM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: > >> Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: > 8 3 6 3 1 2 6 8 2 1 6. > >>> > >>> There are more than four hundred

Re: Testing random

Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: >> Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: 8 3 6 3 1 2 6 8 2 1 6. >>> >>> There are more than four hundred thousand ways to get those numbers >>> in some order. >>> >>> (11! / 2! / 2! / 2! / 3! / 2! = 4158

Re: Testing random

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: > Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: >> >>> 8 3 6 3 1 2 6 8 2 1 6. >> >> There are more than four hundred thousand ways to get those numbers >> in some order. >> >> (11! / 2! / 2! / 2! / 3! / 2! = 415800) > > Fallacy. Order is irrele

Re: Testing random

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 21:42, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:34 AM, wrote: > > In general, as the number of trials increases, the probability of having > > e.g. at least one of each value never _reaches_ 1, but it gets > > arbitrarily close. > > And by "arbitrarily close", yo

Re: Testing random

On 2015-06-08 02:42, Chris Angelico wrote: On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:34 AM, wrote: In general, as the number of trials increases, the probability of having e.g. at least one of each value never _reaches_ 1, but it gets arbitrarily close. And by "arbitrarily close", you mean any of: I belie

Re: Testing random

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:34 AM, wrote: > In general, as the number of trials increases, the probability of having > e.g. at least one of each value never _reaches_ 1, but it gets > arbitrarily close. And by "arbitrarily close", you mean any of: * So close to 1.0 that IEEE double precision is u

Re: Testing random

On Sun, 7 Jun 2015 11:35 pm, Peter Otten wrote: > Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > >>> I wrote a very simple function to test random: >>> def test_random(length, multiplier = 1): >>> number_list = length * [0] >>> for i in range(length * multiplier): >>> number_list

Re: Testing random

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 16:56, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > random...@fastmail.us wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 16:09, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> No. AISB, those sequences all have the same probability: > > > > Yes and the probability of getting _any_ of the sequences, is

Re: Testing random

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:56 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > You really should follow the references and brush up your math. You really should stop being patronising to everyone and pay attention to what is actually being said. If you won't believe us, and you won't believe mathematics, perha

Re: Testing random

On Mon, 8 Jun 2015 04:23 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn >> wrote: The greater the multiplier, the lower the chance that any element will have no hits. >>> Wrong. >>> [ex falso quodlibet] >

Re: Testing random

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 2:26:02 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Chris Angelico wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > > wrote: > >>> The greater the multiplier, the lower the chance that any element will > >>> have no hits. > >> Wrong. > >> > >>>

Re: Testing random

random...@fastmail.us wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 16:09, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> No. AISB, those sequences all have the same probability: > > Yes and the probability of getting _any_ of the sequences, is the sum of > the probabilities for each one of the sequences individually.

Re: Testing random

random...@fastmail.us wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 16:09, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> No. AISB, those sequences all have the same probability: > > Yes and the probability of getting _any_ of the sequences, is the sum of > the probabilities for each one of the sequences individually.

Re: Testing random

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 16:09, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > No. AISB, those sequences all have the same probability: Yes and the probability of getting _any_ of the sequences, is the sum of the probabilities for each one of the sequences individually. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/l

Re: Testing random

Peter Otten wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Peter Otten wrote: >>> Steven D'Aprano wrote: > I wrote a very simple function to test random: > def test_random(length, multiplier = 1): > number_list = length * [0] > for i in range(length * multipl

Re: Testing random

random...@fastmail.us wrote: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 15:29, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Jussi Piitulainen wrote: >> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: >> >> 8 3 6 3 1 2 6 8 2 1 6. >> > >> > There are more than four hundred thousand ways to get those numbers in >> > some order. >> >

Re: Testing random

Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 4:23 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn > wrote: >> If the set to choose from is integer numbers from 1 to 9, then *each* of >> those sequences has *the same* probability (1∕9)¹¹ ≈ 3.1866355 × 10⁻¹¹. >> >> AISB, those are *independent* events; the number

Re: Testing random

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015, at 15:29, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn writes: > >> 8 3 6 3 1 2 6 8 2 1 6. > > > > There are more than four hundred thousand ways to get those numbers in > > some order. > > > > (11! / 2! / 2! / 2! / 3! / 2! =

  1   2   3   4   5   >