• Crul@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Doesn’t it depends on whether we are talking about real or integer numbers?

      EDIT: I think it also works with p-adic numbers.

      • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        No. In the set of real numbers it is still very possible to randomly select a number that can be written with finite digits.

        • lntl@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          op is right, infinity is larger than you’re imagining

          • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            OP is wrong. A truly random real number does have a much higher probability of being an irrational number or repeating rational number, but it is certainly not the case that a truly random number “will be” one of these two as terminating rational numbers are still possible to select.

            • lntl@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              There an infinite number of numbers that have infinite length and are not irrational or repeating. Infinity is larger than youre imagining.

              • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Are you referring to arbitrarily large numbers? Still essentially the same as decimals in the other direction.

                Do you have a mathematical proof for the OP’s claim that a truly random number must have infinite digits?

                • lntl@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  you’re claiming OP is wrong, you need the proof homie

  • funkajunk@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, if truly random it could be any number from 0 to infinity. The randomization doesn’t impart any qualities to the selected number.

    If you randomly selected numbers from the infinite range of numbers for an infinite number of time, you would get a result of “7” just as often as getting “3.456e11”.

  • pruwyben@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see what you’re saying (assuming you mean a random integer from 0 to infinity), but it couldn’t really, since there’s no such thing as an integer with infinite digits - any random integer will have finite number of digits.

    The real problem is there’s no way to choose a random number from 0 to infinity. Every finite number has a probability of 0, and in fact, for any number you choose, there is 0 probability that it will be less than that number. Note that 0 probability is different from “impossible” - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

  • Narrrz@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    are we counting an infinite number of zeroes after the decimal point, as having infinite digits? because if you specifically exclude while numbers, your output would not be truly random, though it would be essentially impossible to distinguish it from true randomness.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    yes, don’t listen to the biologists who tell you otherwise.