Rayman Pirate-Community

PluMGMK wrote:< is tempted to blame Trump.

< thought it was ‘thanks Obama’.

Master wrote:< meant in terms of most activity, < doesn't remember seeing anything bigger than the 260+ we've gotten between RD2016 and now.

< can see more active days between 07/02/16 and record day 2016 though.

< is fucking tired of these notifications
really

< is pretty sure you can disable them.

< likes the notification addition that was made for the new site.

< loves it.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Master wrote:< meant in terms of most activity, < doesn't remember seeing anything bigger than the 260+ we've gotten between RD2016 and now.

< can see more active days between 07/02/16 and record day 2016 though.

Oh, now < feels silly. Yeah, < realises < actually did mean literally similar, < doesn't even know <'s initial intention. But yeah, most active goes to 597 posts on 12th February 2016. Funny how it's been almost a year since those spikes.

597? On a day also in February last year? Strange coincidence, < must say.

< remembers some RD practice posting, < wonders if it was that.

< hopes there won't be a hangover effect tomorrow to where the activity is dead.

Given how things are calming down, < thinks it'll be the case.
Still, we've almost hit 300 posts today, we've got less than half an hour, < thinks we can do it.

A very positive day here in RPC, < must say.

< is going to make some chocolate milk.

Hunchman801 wrote:First of all, the theorem states that one monkey hitting keys at random forever will almost surely type any finite string. It says nothing about an army of monkeys, infinite or not, but we'll get there.

Ah, < had always heard it as an infinite amount of monkeys.

Hunchman801 wrote:

Ambidextroid wrote:That being said, the likelihood of the monkeys typing any string increases proportionally to the amount of monkeys, and if the amount of monkeys is infinite then the possibility of them writing every conceivable word is multiplied by infinity, in other words an infinitely large possibility or 100%.

You can easily see why adding an infinite numbers of monkeys won't change the probability, therefore your assertion that said probability is proportional to the number of monkeys is incorrect. Don't forget that probabilities can never exceed 1.

Whoops, < may have gotten "proportional" wrong.
Still, what I was trying to say is that adding more monkeys to a room for a set time increases the probability that they'll type any specific string. Leaving one money for an hour with a typewriter is probably not going to get you any words, but if you leave a million you're much more likely. < probably didn't mean to say proportional, < meant that as the number of monkeys approach infinity, the probability of any specific string appearing approaches one.

Hunchman801 wrote:Interestingly enough, your incorrect proof led you to the right value as the monkeys (whether one or all, whether they're finite or infinite) have a 100% chance of typing a given finite string. It means that the probability is 1, which translates as almost sure, not sure or guaranteed. No paradox here.

What < meant by paradox is that a probability of 1 would usually mean guaranteed (for example, what's the probability of flipping heads with a coin that has two heads) but at the same time as demonstrated here, a probability of 1 could mean "almost certain" with a possibility of failure.

Maybe mathematically that's not paradoxical but it seemed to < to be somewhat contradictory, that a mathematical probability of 100% could fail.

And sorry about not addressing the maths you used, < isn't familiar with the details and the notation. < has a habit of forming conclusions about things in <'s head that < hasn't learned about so as a result < articulates <'s self really poorly even to <'s self

< is very sleepy

Hopefully < can have a better night than last night. For a while < thought < was in serious pain. It turned out it was <'s stomach that was starting to act up.

Looks like < missed the spike, that's what < gets for having terrible sleeping habits

Well you can help get the post count over 300. That is what < has been doing since activity cooled down.

< wonders how you can see the daily post count?

There's some tools which the admin team can see. What < didn't realise is that it's not according to UTC+0, meaning that it changed before midnight here. According to the tools, we ended the 14th with 284 posts. For the 15th, we currently have 58 posts.

Dang. Close but no cigar. Well < and everyone else gave it their best shot.

< never thought <'d turn out like this: < hates being so dependent on moisturiser.