Re: PVPCWC #28 ballot
- From: ebunn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:31:14 +0000 (UTC)
In article <4337DE93.DCA84E67@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Phil Rose <pvr.dedot.ose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>"Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> Reverse alphabetical isn't random.
>There is a 1 in 60-odd thousand that it was!
With sixteen clues, I get more like one in a trillion (16 factorial).
That's a US trillion -- 10 to the 12th power -- by the way. I don't
know whether trillion still generally means 10 to the 18th in the UK.
I believe the British journal Nature has decided simply not to use the
words "billion" and "trillion" in scientific articles. They do use
them in news articles to refer to amounts of money, where they have
the US meanings. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
On a still geekier note, this is not the probability that this
sequence was generated randomly but rather the probability that if a
sequence had been generated randomly it would have come out this way.
The two are related by a theorem by this guy (boring clue invented to
give this post a modicum of on-topic-ness):
Statistician has a college degree, of course (5).
-Ted
--
[E-mail me at name@xxxxxxxxxx, as opposed to name@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
.
- References:
- PVPCWC #28 ballot
- From: Jim Sherman
- Re: PVPCWC #28 ballot
- From: Peter T. Daniels
- Re: PVPCWC #28 ballot
- From: Phil Rose
- PVPCWC #28 ballot
- Prev by Date: Re: Off-colour clue?
- Next by Date: Re: PVPCWC #28 ballot
- Previous by thread: Re: PVPCWC #28 ballot
- Next by thread: Re: PVPCWC #28 ballot
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|