Theorem on the presence of memory in random sequences - page 13
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
What does "stable" mean?
It doesn't matter in this case.
Let it be stable - it means staying on the plus side after every game session in infinity throws.
There is a square cube with dots drawn on it, but for the sake of simplicity we will assume that there are numbers drawn on it, because dots need to be counted, and that is difficult. Numbers are hard, though. Let's skip the numbers.
We have a six-sided cube.
You are on any of the sides, or on multiple sides at the same time (not important) glued money - as much as you want.
When you throw the cube, it rolls, and then stops, and the Almighty, looking down from heaven on the cube, peels off the top side of the money, counts it, multiplies it by six - and gives it to you. That is, you get back your money, which was at the top of the cube + profit in the size of 5 same money on top. But, in addition, the Almighty takes all the money from the die that wasn't on the top side back to his pocket after each roll.
A player is considered the winner when he earns the dough.
//****************
Probability theory says that it is most likely that a player will be left holding his own.
Cheaters say that a player can earn consistently.
So you also fail to state the rules of the game in a sane way? Judging by the amount of writing you have no problem with your hands... so that's... is it?
It doesn't matter in this case.
Let it be stable - it means staying on the plus side after every game session in infinity throws.
This is very important!
If we generate a series of outcomes according to this strategy, then according to the law of large numbers the MO on a large segment will tend to 0. But there will be segments where the MO is greater than 0. And there will be segments where the MO is less than 0.
Was it necessary to create a "theorem" for that?
There's a square cube...
Also, you know, smartass, cubes aren't squares. A cube is a volumetric body and a square is a flat figure... But of course you don't care, such subtleties bother you, as well as many other things.
The"six-sided cube" is also a masterpiece of thought. You probably alsohave five-sided cubes, seven-sided cubes?
Actually, you don't have six-sided cubes either, because they're hexagonal.
Write again.
This is very important!
If you generate a series of outcomes using this strategy, then by the law of large numbers, the MO will tend to 0 on a large segment. But there will be some sections where the ME will be greater than 0. And there will be sections where it will be less than 0.
Was it necessary to create a "theorem" for that?
Well, I'm not the author of the theorem. Yes, and I reversed the condition, not going into much because it is for me too complicated) Just love to gape...but the theme )))
It will not approach zero. Zero is just a mathematical expectation with a big dispersion.
Also, you know, smartass, cubes aren't squares. A cube is a volumetric body and a square is a flat figure... But of course you don't care, such subtleties bother you, as well as many other things.
The"six-sided cube" is also a masterpiece of thought. You probably alsohave five-sided cubes, seven-sided cubes?
Actually, you don't have six-sided cubes either, because they're hexagonal.
Write again.
Sorry, I was just trying to keep it as simple as possible. "A proper hexahedron" would have sounded vulgar.
Unfortunately, it didn't work out for you.
It's a joke!).
Don't be offended.
I've been told many times not to be offended by people like me)
In the first post for example there is already an error here:
Well, the reasoning itself is also a very strange assumption - it turns out that the third cast can be skipped... and it is the one you are betting on
Shit, overnight you corrected the content of the first post of the thread???
Mr. Reshetov?
That's right! It could only have been Reshetov. Who else? Took overnight, hacked into the methaquot server and corrected an earlier inaccuracy.
Now tell me, who is this Reshetov after such a treachery, if not a bad guy? After all, by correcting his own inaccuracy, he ruined for all his opponents a wonderful opportunity to get to the bottom of it.
Reshetov should file a cart against him to the Hague tribunal and collect the necessary number of signatures so that others will not be punished either.