Soren wrote:I'm wondering if there's something I can do to rig the system to generate a set of more closely related numbers (because I have nothing left to do here).

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Soren wrote:I'm wondering if there's something I can do to rig the system to generate a set of more closely related numbers (because I have nothing left to do here).

multiply them all by 2

Soren wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Soren wrote:I'm wondering if there's something I can do to rig the system to generate a set of more closely related numbers (because I have nothing left to do here).

multiply them all by 2

I was thinking more along the lines of restricting the range of y values based off of the randomly generated x value or multiplying both values by a third randomly generated number.

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Soren wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Soren wrote:I'm wondering if there's something I can do to rig the system to generate a set of more closely related numbers (because I have nothing left to do here).

multiply them all by 2

I was thinking more along the lines of restricting the range of y values based off of the randomly generated x value or multiplying both values by a third randomly generated number.

Would you be multiplying both x and y by the new z or generating a separate random for each?

Soren wrote:x = some random number within some range
y = some random number within a range such that x - z < y < x + z

Bucky wrote:There are more possible permutations in the order of cards in a standard 52 card deck than there are particles in the universe

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Bucky wrote:There are more possible permutations in the order of cards in a standard 52 card deck than there are particles in the universe

prove it

WheelsFellOff wrote:

Soren wrote:x = some random number within some range
y = some random number within a range such that x - z < y < x + z

You'd need abs(z), no?

WheelsFellOff wrote:Maybe the number of atoms in the observable universe, but there's about 10^80 fundamental particles in just the observable universe.

td11 wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:Maybe the number of atoms in the observable universe, but there's about 10^80 fundamental particles in just the observable universe.

this is almost certainly what they mean

"there are more grains of sand on earth than atoms in the universe" is another popular one

TenuredVulture wrote:

td11 wrote:

WheelsFellOff wrote:Maybe the number of atoms in the observable universe, but there's about 10^80 fundamental particles in just the observable universe.

this is almost certainly what they mean

"there are more grains of sand on earth than atoms in the universe" is another popular one

That doesn't sound right.

So, if the low end estimate for the number of stars matches the high end estimate for the number of grains of sand, it’s the same. But more likely, there are 5 to 10 times more stars than there are grains of sand on all the world’s beaches.

Oh, one more thing. Instead of grains of sand, what about atoms? How big is 10 sextillion atoms? How huge would something with that massive quantity of anything be? Pretty gigantic. Well, relatively at least. 10 sextillion of anything does sound like a whole lot.

If you were to make a pile of that many atoms… guess how big it would be. It’d be about…. (gesture big then gesture small) 4 times smaller than a dust mite. Which means, a single grain of sand has more atoms than there are stars in the Universe.