Talk:100 prisoners: Difference between revisions
→Test at 10 prisoners too?: new section
(→Wikipedia link?: added a comment or two.) |
Thundergnat (talk | contribs) (→Test at 10 prisoners too?: new section) |
||
Line 17:
:That's in the Python too; the first failing prisoner breaks out of the ''for prisoner in ...'' loop. --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] ([[User talk:Paddy3118|talk]]) 20:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
== Test at 10 prisoners too? ==
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)
| |||