The St Petersburg phenomenon. The paradoxes of probability theory. - page 3
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
With a bet of 4, it seems to be a level playing field (if I understand the rules of the game correctly).
or
or
or
or
Last option. The remainder of the division of the curve - checked.
Last option. The remainder of the division of the curve - checked.
Why is it crooked? It's not crooked, it's just the compiler that swears, but it swears in vain.
To avoid it, you can do this:
It's not hard to check it:
Why is it crooked? It's not crooked, it's just the compiler that's swearing, but it's swearing in vain.
You may do the following to avoid it:
It's not hard to check it:
We did, the randomness wasn't random at all. It was long ago, back at the 4th forum. I don't remember exactly how they checked it, but the picture was quite sinusoidal. It's not because the compiler would scold us.
We checked, the randomness wasn't random at all.
What are you talking about!
MathRand()%2 only takes two values - 0 or 1.
We checked, the randomness wasn't random at all. It was a long time ago, back in the 4th forum. I don't remember exactly how it was checked, but the picture was quite sinusoidal. It's not that the compiler is scolding at all.
Yes, I got your point. Indeed, I saw a drop-out from a random process. The rand() algorithm is obviously far from being perfect.
Yes, then this variant, especially it is the fastest, since there are no mathematical operations:
What are you talking about!
MathRand()%2 takes only two values - 0 or 1.
But you can sum them up or not take the remainder from two.
Yes, the most normal variant with if(rand()<16384), something did not think))
You can make some more twists and turns:
which is exactly the same, but in a way that most people don't understand. ))