Talk:Dice game probabilities: Difference between revisions
Walterpachl (talk | contribs) (→Rational Arithmetic: new section) |
(possible extended task?) |
||
Line 48:
Inspired by Racket I boosted ooRexx and PL/I by using Rational Arithmetic. Actually I should have used the implementation that can be found here on RC! but I rolled my own before looking. --[[User:Walterpachl|Walterpachl]] ([[User talk:Walterpachl|talk]]) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
== Possible extension? ==
Nice task. While implementing it, I found myself briefly misunderstanding the "draw" scenario and an interesting alternative occurred to me. What if a "draw" resulted in the game being re-run? This changes the probabilities fairly significantly (not just <tt>W/(W+L)</tt>, but <tt>(W + D*k)/(W+L+D)</tt> for some <tt>k</tt>, which can be determined by running lots of trials or by calculus. That probably puts it more in the realm of a Project Euler task than RosettaCode, but might make a fun extension. --[[User:Aspectcl|Aspectcl]] ([[User talk:Aspectcl|talk]]) 04:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 04:50, 20 June 2015
Test runs
Test runs with 10000 samples show
0.5751 player 1 wins (agrees with shown probabilities)
0.3535 player 2 wins
0.0714 draws
and for the second part:
0.6405 player 1 wins (differs considerably)
0.3147 player 2 wins
0.0448 draws
Can somebody show the pseudo code ?
--Walterpachl (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Second part is ten 5-sided dice vs seven 6-sided dice, no?Never mind, everyone else (i.e. Bearophile and I) used the wrong numbers. Your result is correct. --Ledrug (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)- :-) Still: Is your solution built analytically? Pseudocode? My attempt to translate it to REXX got stuck in the recursion. :-( --Walterpachl (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh well. REXX and ooRexx show now the algorithm. What have we learned? Testing is always a good idea! --Walterpachl (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Change of D's results: I don't have D, so I can't test. How did the corrected (or the previous, incorrect) results come about? Just being curious: --Walterpachl (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Results compared
Numeric Digits 130 Say 3781171969/5882450000 /* 0.642788628717626159168373721835 C 0.6427886287176260 D 0.6427886287176262 ooRexx 0.642788628717626159168373721835 REXX 0.642788628717626159168373721835 PL/I 0.642703175544738770 Python 0.642788628718 Python v2 0.6427886287176262 Python v3 0.6427886287176262 Racket 0.6427886287176261591683737218335897457691948082856632865557718297648088806534692177579069945345901793 0.6427886287176261591683737218335897457691948082856632865557718297648088806534692177579069945345901792620421763040909824987887699853 ooRexx (*)0.64278862871762615916837372183358974576919480828566328655577182976480888065346921775790699453459017926204217630409098249878876998529524262849 Racket (3781171969/5882450000) */
--Walterpachl (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Rational Arithmetic
Inspired by Racket I boosted ooRexx and PL/I by using Rational Arithmetic. Actually I should have used the implementation that can be found here on RC! but I rolled my own before looking. --Walterpachl (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Possible extension?
Nice task. While implementing it, I found myself briefly misunderstanding the "draw" scenario and an interesting alternative occurred to me. What if a "draw" resulted in the game being re-run? This changes the probabilities fairly significantly (not just W/(W+L), but (W + D*k)/(W+L+D) for some k, which can be determined by running lots of trials or by calculus. That probably puts it more in the realm of a Project Euler task than RosettaCode, but might make a fun extension. --Aspectcl (talk) 04:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)