So "the formula" that you get at least one of something in a series of trials is, where n is the number of flips or trials or whatever and probability_not is (1 - probability) of the event. So in two flips, to not get any heads you need the first flip no heads (50%) and then the 2nd flip no heads (50% again) so the probability of no heads in two flips is 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25, the "one in four" of the iterated-out example (TT from ). So for any one flip the chance of heads is 50%, so the chance of Not_Heads (tails) is 100%-50%=50%. Don't try to calculate the chance of getting say heads in three flips, calculate the chance of NOT getting heads at all and then subtract that from 100% (or 1.00 probability). It's counterintuitive, but you need to do the 'opposite formula' to get what you're looking for. Attempting to illustrate how it work builds understanding of an un-understandable concept. Random isn't a mathematical construct (in fact it's the most a-mathematical construct in existence), it's psychological.
Probability wise, there is nothing wrong with this outcome, but for some people it's just going to reinforce the idea that RNG is either broken or that it can be influenced (for instance that maybe Sundials drop more in crates that are opened at night). For instance, in your 15 crates tests, you got a lot more Sundials than you statistically should have. If you have multiple instances of a random outcome, then people are instinctually going to try and find a pattern between them, even though there is none (which is the entire point you've been trying to make). You could very well have just put up the picture of a goat up there.īut here comes the coup de grâce: multiple pictures. Notice the paradox? 'An example of randomness'? Or in other words, an example of something unpredictable from which we are to derive an understanding of a concept.
The images you have provided too are examples of randomness. Any such pattern is what we call a random pattern (for instance Gaussian Blur, which is perfectly mathematical, but the result appears random). However, most of these are too complicated for humans to understand and/or predict. On the scale of the universe, nothing is random: everything is caused by something. People intentionally try to give an outcome they think is random, in the process no longer making the choice random. Ask a group of people a number ranging from 0 to 10 and you'll get very little 0s or 10s (because by mentioning those in the range, humans now have those in their short term memory, and will intentionally omit them because they are no longer considered a random outcome). But at any rate, computers are infinitely better at random than humans are. You might have heard that computers can't do random, which is in fact true. Then with all due respect, I think this thread is in fact counter-productive.