3 ms·
I'd think that he could have also proven this with a lot less work by writing a simulation.
by Johnny555 8y ago
I'd think that he could have also proven this with a lot less work by writing a simulation.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- spydum 8y agoSimulation proves only the theory - sampling and experimentation proves the implementation. Otherwise it might be entirely possible for the packaging process to fill an exact match at a far higher rate - and for the mix to NOT be random.
- Johnny555 8y agoRight, so he didn't really prove the implementation, he'd need to repeat his experiment a number of times. Trivial in a simulation, less so if you have to buy and count them.
- whatshisface 8y agoIt would not have been practical to design a simulation of a Skittles packaging machine, as the design of those machines is not public information.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoHow would he know what distribution to use for the simulation without a sufficiently large dataset to use as an example? A simulation of a made-up system is pretty worthless.
- billfruit 8y agoBut the experiment also does not prove much beyond that it was 488 in this particular one case or does it?
- jjeaff 8y agoBut a simulation would not be able to prove your assumptions correct and would do nothing but validate your math. All your math can be correct but if your assumptions are incorrect, your results may not be accurate.
- Johnny555 8y agoThe simulation needn't use the same math. It does, however, help validate the assumptions -- that bags are filled randomly. But to write his simulation, he just needs to fill virtual bags with random colors and count them, no math needed.
- sopooneo 8y agoBut "fill bags with random colors" is already basing your simulation on the assumption that the colors are uniformly distributed. And in fact, that seems to be one of the things he found incorrect in his actual experiment.