{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/28/2014 2:45:02 PM
1
When measuring the fact that it DID happen 4 weeks in a row Op is correct. I tutored statistics in college.
English
-
What I'm saying is that it doesn't make it any less probable for it to happen, and based on his post, it does not make it not RNG. You really can't base it off how many times it happens in a row if it is completely random. It will still be the same percentage regardless of how many times it happened in the past weeks.
-
You are correct if you are only determining what is possible to come next week. When you're given a timeframe of 4 weeks the probability of it happening again over the course of another set of 4 weeks is what op stated. Moot points regardless but its fun to look at numbers
-
[quote]It will still be the same percentage regardless of how many times it happened in the past weeks.[/quote] Correct, which is why the OP raised 0.1666 to the fourth power. He never modified the week-to-week odds of the Vestments appearing, but the outcome was an astoundingly low percentage chance of the item appearing 4 times [b]in a row[/b]. Appearing =/= Appearing Consecutively Think of it like rolling a six-sided die. Every time you roll, you have a 1-in-6 chance of landing on a particular number - let's say 6. Roll 6 times, the odds for each number stay the same. But it's very mathematically improbable that you will land on 6, 6 times in a row. It's possible, just highly improbable. [b][i]That's[/i][/b] how statistics work. You and OP are both correct, just arguing different things.
-
I'm arguing that you cannot base probability on a RNG based factor.
