Talk:100 prisoners: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(Only numbers not yet visited at still need to be checked.) |
|||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Would it be worth asking for a test run at 10 prisoners as well (as I did in the Perl 6 entry) to verify that the logic is correct for random selection? Right now, with 100 prisoners the random portion could be just be: "Fail" and it would be only be wrong 7.89e-29 percent of the time. If tested with 10, the prisoners should be pardoned ~.097 percent of the time. Though I see that the task has already been promoted out of draft after... ~18 whole hours? What's the rush? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 22:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
Would it be worth asking for a test run at 10 prisoners as well (as I did in the Perl 6 entry) to verify that the logic is correct for random selection? Right now, with 100 prisoners the random portion could be just be: "Fail" and it would be only be wrong 7.89e-29 percent of the time. If tested with 10, the prisoners should be pardoned ~.097 percent of the time. Though I see that the task has already been promoted out of draft after... ~18 whole hours? What's the rush? --[[User:Thundergnat|Thundergnat]] ([[User talk:Thundergnat|talk]]) 22:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
||
==No card viewed en route to a find needs further checking== |
|||
If a prisoner finds their card within the number of steps allowed, all card numbers viewed en route can also be found in exactly the same number of steps. |
|||
Only numbers not yet seen still need to be checked. [[User:Hout|Hout]] ([[User talk:Hout|talk]]) 12:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |