Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, with non-zero probability?
1. On the current Nethack 2. On a computer where all integers could be infinitely long. (So you can have a HP 1751941846920456965203/948727592745329475439759375937573957, say)
"Dan" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:38A9717C.AF50AAF4@hotmail.com... > Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, > with non-zero probability?
> 1. On the current Nethack > 2. On a computer where all integers could be infinitely long. > (So you can have a HP > 1751941846920456965203/948727592745329475439759375937573957, say)
You could win the game and "ascend to demigod(dess)hood". From what I recall, demigods are immortal... ;p
There's also the issue that Nethack probably depends on integers being a fixed size (no matter how big). So you would probably have trouble getting it to compile on that machine.
Practice makes perfect in Nethack. But remember that you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.
-- #include <disclaimer.h> /-------------------------------------------------\ | Gary D. Young gdyo...@us.oracle.flames.com | | Chance Dragon Source Diver | | --=<UDIC>=-- Ascensions: VA | | to respond: delete all flames | \-------------------------------------------------/
Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, >with non-zero probability?
No.
Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be.
You can't pray for food indefinitely. There is a nonzero chance that no food or edible corpses will be generated for a very long time. You can't reliably polymorph into a non-eating monster. Hence, you starve. -- damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk T000B320O500T000N230O500T000L000D510G653I500 T000V430H600T000T000V453S530A530T000D625T000B453T000E200T300S500A530T000V22 0 A530T000S525A530T000L500O500L500T200I200T000F462T000C415H532A554F400F650T00 0 A554G453I500T000V430H600T000T000V453S530G520R530A530A653A530A653A530A653A53 0
"Dan" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:38A9717C.AF50AAF4@hotmail.com... > Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, > with non-zero probability?
> 1. On the current Nethack > 2. On a computer where all integers could be infinitely long. > (So you can have a HP > 1751941846920456965203/948727592745329475439759375937573957, say)
Actually, I just thought of a way to live indefinitely.
1) Find one of those little one-square places off of some rooms that are empty and have no exits/entrances. Not a vault. 2) Teleport there (preferably without intrinsic teleportation), or polymorph into a Xorn and walk there. 3) Polymorph into a creature that doesn't eat. IIRC, none of the undead monsters eat, so I'd suggest a dwarf zombie. Aren't zombies supposed to eat brains? Perhaps that can be a future modification... 4) Put on an amulet of unchanging. 5) Genocide Xorns, Mind flayers, dwarves (all of them), rock moles, umber hulks, and anything else that can dig. They're the only ones I think have a chance of damaging you through a wall. 6) n60000. 7) goto step 6.
You ought to be able to survive this, but if you can pull it off, you're probably well-equipped enough to attempt an actual ascension.
Anyone have any modifications to this setup to make it more fool-proof? Perhaps getting rid of the warning intrinsic or ESP, or something would be useful so the game doesn't interrupt you with messages. That's why I suggested the lack of intrinsic teleportation. Getting rid of automatic searching would be nice in case you jumped into a one-width room that actually had a secret door attached....
-- #include <disclaimer.h> /-------------------------------------------------\ | Gary D. Young gdyo...@us.oracle.flames.com | | Chance Dragon Source Diver | | --=<UDIC>=-- Ascensions: VA | | to respond: delete all flames | \-------------------------------------------------/
"Gary D. Young" <gdyo...@us.oracle.flames.com> writes:
> "Dan" <r...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:38A9717C.AF50AAF4@hotmail.com... > > Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, > > with non-zero probability? > Actually, I just thought of a way to live indefinitely.
> 1) Find one of those little one-square places off of some rooms > that are empty and have no exits/entrances. Not a vault.
Note that these will never be _empty_, as such; there'll always be at least a scroll of teleportation, just in case some accident got you stuck there.
> 2) Teleport there (preferably without intrinsic teleportation), > or polymorph into a Xorn and walk there. > 3) Polymorph into a creature that doesn't eat. IIRC, none of > the undead monsters eat, so I'd suggest a dwarf zombie. Aren't > zombies supposed to eat brains? Perhaps that can be a future > modification... > 4) Put on an amulet of unchanging. > 5) Genocide Xorns, Mind flayers, dwarves (all of them), rock > moles, umber hulks, and anything else that can dig. They're > the only ones I think have a chance of damaging you through > a wall. > 6) n60000. > 7) goto step 6.
> You ought to be able to survive this, but if you can pull it > off, you're probably well-equipped enough to attempt an actual > ascension.
A refinement - you don't want to wear the amulet, that'll make you hungry. You want to be polyed into a xorn and eat it (or enough so that one takes). (Don't worry about then genociding them; if you've got unchanging, you can survive it provided you use a blessed scroll rather than an uncursed one. This is very likely a bug. I'll see what nethack-bugs have to say). Xorns don't _need_ to eat, so you're safe enough right there.
You'll need to be on a level with no ghosts or shades, of course. Genocide woodchucks and doppelgangers as well (as archeologists, dopps can tunnel if they lay their hands on a pick axe). Avoid levels with message-producing features like fountains or shops.
A quick test in wizard mode shows this works up to 100000 turns (that's xorn turns - the speed system means that the turn counter doesn't quite track the number of . commands issued. Also, you can't wait 60000 at once, the max is LARGEST_INT which is 32767) without apparent problem. All those monsters being generated throughout the level and then tracked don't half chew up CPU after a while, though. Wonder if there's any problems when the level becomes _entirely_ full of monsters... the RNG should, as far as I can see, just give up trying to place new ones at that point, but I doubt it's undergone much stress-testing. Quaffing a blessed potion of monster detection at this point is _fun_, though :-)
Having said all this, there's rather a drawback. Earth elementals aren't genocidable. You'll have to have the whole thing arranged on a level where they can't be generated, which means the average of your DL and XL need to be less than 10.
Dylan O'Donnell wrote: > Having said all this, there's rather a drawback. Earth elementals > aren't genocidable. You'll have to have the whole thing arranged on a > level where they can't be generated, which means the average of your DL > and XL need to be less than 10.
How about instead of doing it in a 1x1 unattached room, you dig it out to be a 3x3 unattached room, you stand in the middle, and then reverse genocide brown molds (or some other sessile monster) so that they occupy the 8 spaces around you.
You still need to genocide any digging monsters, but I think you should now be safe from Xorns and Earth Elementals, since they wouldn't attach the molds so they'd never get next to you.
FFF E FXF FFF +------+ |DcjnLR|
-- Peter Snelling, P.Eng. (snell...@nortelnetworks.com) Nortel Networks, Ottawa, Canada Standard Disclaimer: My views only, not my employer's
dyl...@demon.net (Dylan O'Donnell) writes: > Having said all this, there's rather a drawback. Earth elementals > aren't genocidable. You'll have to have the whole thing arranged on a
damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, >>with non-zero probability?
>No.
>Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random >numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be.
Not true. To have a non-zero probablity of success, it must work for at least *one* set of random numbers, the answer's still no, though, I think.
>You can't pray for food indefinitely. There is a nonzero chance that no >food or edible corpses will be generated for a very long time. You can't >reliably polymorph into a non-eating monster. Hence, you starve.
Given that there is only a fixed number of each type of monster, after a (long) while, you'd end up relying on food being generated and after you've cleared out the stuff from every level, there wil be no more food generated, so you end up starving to death in a very empty dungeon.
OTOH it is possible to wish for smoky potions, which have a possibilty of giving you more wishes, so using some wishes on food and some on more smoky potions, you might live for ever. In fact, if smoky is fruit juice, you won't even have to wish for food. I don't think this is very likely to work, though.
-- Richard Smeltzer But it can still be a brighter day, all I need are some cooking utensils and my special party hat...
David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, > >with non-zero probability?
> No.
> Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random > numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be.
> You can't pray for food indefinitely. There is a nonzero chance that no > food or edible corpses will be generated for a very long time. You can't > reliably polymorph into a non-eating monster. Hence, you starve.
I wonder whether you could manage it with a horn of plenty and the Platinum Yendorian Express Card. If you could have a horn of plenty with infinite charges, then I'm pretty sure your probability of surviving indefinitely would be high. If you apply it and produce a food ration, that's 800 units, and extends your time to live by 794 turns after you've deducted the 1 turn taken to produce it and the 5 turns taken to eat it. If you produce a potion of acid, then that has no nutrition, and you've wasted 1 turn. (You may also have to waste the occasional turn putting things down or picking them up, but I don't think that makes much difference.) So with the hypothetical infinite horn, your time to live oscillates up and down in a random walk. Since you gain much more when you get food than you lose when you get a potion of acid, and I think the probability of getting food on a random application of a horn of plenty is quite high, you are likely to survive indefinitely.
What happens when the infinite horn is replaced by a horn of plenty and the PYEC? First of all, can a horn of plenty be recharged infinitely many times? If not, then this strategy is completely useless. Next, how long do you have to wait between invocations of the PYEC - is it a random number between X and Y, or a random number from a Poisson distribution with mean X, and what are the values of X and Y? It might make a difference whether or not you are a Tourist and able to perform blessed charging. Even so, since even one food ration will keep you going more than long enough to invoke the PYEC again, this strategy seems quite promising to me. Eva.
-- Eva Myers, Computer Officer, Statistical | Ignorance and deception can't Laboratory, University of Cambridge | save anybody. *Knowing* saves Email: erm1...@cam.ac.uk | them.
>> Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random >> numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be.
>> You can't pray for food indefinitely. There is a nonzero chance that no >> food or edible corpses will be generated for a very long time. You can't >> reliably polymorph into a non-eating monster. Hence, you starve.
>What happens when the infinite horn is replaced by a horn of plenty >and the PYEC? First of all, can a horn of plenty be recharged >infinitely many times? If not, then this strategy is completely >useless. Next, how long do you have to wait between invocations of >the PYEC - is it a random number between X and Y, or a random number >from a Poisson distribution with mean X, and what are the values of X >and Y? It might make a difference whether or not you are a Tourist >and able to perform blessed charging. Even so, since even one food >ration will keep you going more than long enough to invoke the PYEC >again, this strategy seems quite promising to me. >Eva.
Not to mention that with a amulet of unchanging, and an appropriate polymorph form, you can greatly increase the periods between needing to eat.
Bagpuss <MAT...@leeds.ac.spamuk.leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >>Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, >>>with non-zero probability? >>Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random >>numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be. >Not true. To have a non-zero probablity of success, it must work for at least >*one* set of random numbers, the answer's still no, though, I think.
Oh, FFS. Doesn't anyone think before posting? He's talking about surviving _infinitely_ long; any _finite_ series of numbers will be generated by the RNG in that period. A strategy that works for only some sets of random numbers has a non-zero probability of success for any finite (even extremely long) period, but not for an infinite one.
[More precisely, the probability of such a strategy succeeding tends to zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.]
>>You can't pray for food indefinitely. There is a nonzero chance that no >>food or edible corpses will be generated for a very long time. You can't >>reliably polymorph into a non-eating monster. Hence, you starve.
Of course, I had forgotten the amulet of unchanging when I wrote this... -- David/Kirsty Damerell. damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris! |___| "Life is short and love is always over in the morning." |___| | | | Temple of Love - The Sisters of Mercy. | | |
<damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >Bagpuss <MAT...@leeds.ac.spamuk.leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >>damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >>>Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, >>>>with non-zero probability? >>>Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random >>>numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be. >>Not true. To have a non-zero probablity of success, it must work for at least >>*one* set of random numbers, the answer's still no, though, I think.
>Oh, FFS. Doesn't anyone think before posting? He's talking about surviving >_infinitely_ long; any _finite_ series of numbers will be generated by the >RNG in that period. A strategy that works for only some sets of random >numbers has a non-zero probability of success for any finite (even >extremely long) period, but not for an infinite one.
>[More precisely, the probability of such a strategy succeeding tends to >zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.]
Not a horribly brilliant proof, and it doesn't even have the virtue of being correct. Oh well...
The probability of a specific strategy will only approach zero as the number of turns in the game tends to infinity if the strategy is unsound. Even given that stipulation, such a strategy still has a positive, albeit negligible, chance of surviving infinitely. Suppose for a moment that every number the RNG generates can be likened to a single digit, so those digits, if laid out one after the other, would reveal an irrational real number. Let's also assume that for two specific values of that number, pi and e, the attempt will succeed. The probability of succeeding after the first turn is .2, after the second turn it is .02, after the third .002, ad infinitum. The limit as the function approaches infinity is zero, but the actual value of the function as it approaches infinity is (.2)*(.1)^(infinity), while infintesimally small, is a positive number.
Perhaps you should think a little harder before posting responses out of your apparent field?
In article <LDt*ZG...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Oh, FFS. Doesn't anyone think before posting? He's talking about surviving >_infinitely_ long; any _finite_ series of numbers will be generated by the >RNG in that period.
Hey, chill. This is false, even though the following assertion is true:
>[More precisely, the probability of such a strategy succeeding tends to >zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.]
You have to state the first one in the same sense: the probability of any a-priori-fixed sequence appearing in a string approaches 1 as the string gets long. I'm sure you know this, but nonmathematical readers might be confused by the first formulation.
If an event that will kill you may occur every turn, with probability p, then the expected number of turns for which you survive is (1 - p)/p. For more details look in a text on probability or statistics, under "binomial distribution".
David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Bagpuss <MAT...@leeds.ac.spamuk.leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > >damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: > >>Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, > >>>with non-zero probability? > >>Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random > >>numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be. > >Not true. To have a non-zero probablity of success, it must work for at least > >*one* set of random numbers, the answer's still no, though, I think.
> Oh, FFS. Doesn't anyone think before posting? He's talking about surviving > _infinitely_ long; any _finite_ series of numbers will be generated by the > RNG in that period. A strategy that works for only some sets of random > numbers has a non-zero probability of success for any finite (even > extremely long) period, but not for an infinite one.
> [More precisely, the probability of such a strategy succeeding tends to > zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.]
If there were one particular finite series of random numbers that would kill you no matter _what_ your situation was when it came up, then your probability of surviving infinitely long would be zero. E.g., if your only source of nutrition was monsters that you had just killed, then a period of more than 5000 turns with no monsters being generated would kill you. (I suspect that number is way too high - I'm just using it for an illustration.) Because the 5000 zeroes _will_ turn up eventually, the probability of success tends to zero.
But if the series of random numbers it would take to kill you is not fixed but tending to increase in length over time, then your probability of surviving infinitely long need no longer be zero. This is what I think happens with my strategy of the horn of plenty - by the time the 5000 zeroes hit, you have almost certainly got a sufficient stockpile of food to survive them. By the time enough zeroes to kill you with that stockpile turn up, the stockpile has grown big enough to survive them, ad infinitum with non-zero probability.
A strategy which could survive _any_ set of random numbers would have probability 1 of success (once it reached the point of being able to survive anything). David's right that there's no strategy which does reach the point of being able to survive anything (except for eating an amulet of unchanging?), but the probability can tend to a finite number somewhere between one and zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.
This is similar to the "unbounded random walk" problem which you may know about - if you start on the edge of a cliff, and on each turn walk one step towards it or one step away from it with equal probability, then you will fall over with probability 1. But if instead you walk away with probability 2/3 and towards with probability 1/3, then you have probability 1/2 of surviving for ever. I hope a mathematician will now jump in, explain why this is, and correct any mistakes I've made in this post. Eva.
-- Eva Myers, Computer Officer, Statistical | Ignorance and deception can't Laboratory, University of Cambridge | save anybody. *Knowing* saves Email: erm1...@cam.ac.uk | them.
In article <xo2itzoq005....@tcm16.phy.cam.ac.uk>, erm1...@tcm16.phy.cam.ac.uk says...
[Many things... basic summary: statistics sucks!]
>A strategy which could survive _any_ set of random numbers would have >probability 1 of success (once it reached the point of being able to >survive anything). David's right that there's no strategy which does >reach the point of being able to survive anything (except for eating >an amulet of unchanging?)
Well... I think, in nethack's current incarnation, that the probability can indeed be 1.
As a test, I'm currently sitting at turn 336,894 with no apparent reason to think the safe status of the character will change.
Not unless there's a programming limitation I can hit (ie: if the turn counter reaches the maximum size for the variable it is stored in? What if the 14 spaces still unoccupied on my map have a monster generated in them, and then the program tries to generate another... will it crash?) But, assuming the program doesn't blow up from stress-testing code limitations... I think it does indeed hit probability 1. =)
(note, for the record, I'm the X, there is a boulder, as well as a blue jelly on each of the squares surrounding me, and I have genocided master mind flayers and mind flayers.)
David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message > Oh, FFS. Doesn't anyone think before posting? He's talking about surviving > _infinitely_ long; any _finite_ series of numbers will be generated by the > RNG in that period. A strategy that works for only some sets of random > numbers has a non-zero probability of success for any finite (even > extremely long) period, but not for an infinite one.
Others have already pointed out problems with this argument but here's one that I haven't heard from anyone yet (on this topic): Some may call it a god, but the RNG is a Turing machine. It CANNOT generate even one random number. What it does is generate psuedo random numbers. Different seeds increase the number of psuedo random numbers which can be generated, but there are a finite number of possible seeds. So for some integer n, after generating n pseudo random numbers the n+1 th will be the same the first, the n+2th the same as the second etc. The number n may be fantastically large but it is not infinite. If the DevTeam have found a way around this, there are some cryptographers that would like to speak with them.
(All of this is assuming that the RNG is not hooked up to some external physical event to get its random numbers rather than using a psuedo random number generator)
Nephi -- Homer: Aah! OK, don't panic -- remember the advice your father gave you on your wedding day. [remembers Abe with hair and a tuxedo] Abe: If you ever travel back in time, don't step on anything because even the tiniest change can alter the future in ways you can't imagine.
Well, I followed your HOWTO in wizmode and used it on the bigroom. On my first attempt I was only surrounded by seven jellies and at the remaining corner there came a giant eventually which I killed with the wand of death I wished for. Then I teleported away into a new location where I made a full shield of jellies and boulders around me.
Now I discovered something funny: most of the monsters on the level (and there are many at turn #10,000) followed me to the new location, but some of them remain lurking around my former position. How is the monster movement AI implemented? Do they reckognize me at my old position and just missed my teleport or what?
Oh, and a bug maybe:
You hear a mumbled curse. HM7 You hear a mumbled curse.--More--
HM7? I only know Scroll Nr. 9...
Sascha
-- neth...@gmx.de http://www.nethack.de/ You break up the fortune cookie and throw away the pieces.--More-- This cookie has a scrap of paper inside. It reads:--More-- Shopkeepers can't tell identical twins apart.
> Given that there is only a fixed number of each type of monster, > after a (long) while, you'd end up relying on food being > generated and after you've cleared out the stuff from every > level, there wil be no more food generated, > so you end up starving to death in a very empty dungeon.
The quest levels for Barbarians specialize in Ogres. The "extinct after 120" rule doesn't apply there. I've killed over 1000 of the beggars. I suspect that the same applies to [quest levels + quest special enemies] for all types of characters.
(I tinned over 500 of them. And they're yours for just 20 zorkmids a tin! Home-made ogre: yum yum.)
-- Rob Ellwood To reply, delete the anti-spam stuff in the address.
> Others have already pointed out problems with this argument but here's one > that I haven't heard from anyone yet (on this topic): > Some may call it a god, but the RNG is a Turing machine. It CANNOT generate > even one random number. What it does is generate psuedo random numbers. > Different seeds increase the number of psuedo random numbers which can be > generated, but there are a finite number of possible seeds. So for some > integer n, > after generating n pseudo random numbers the n+1 th will be the same the > first, the > n+2th the same as the second etc. The number n may be fantastically large > but it is > not infinite. > If the DevTeam have found a way around this, there are some cryptographers > that > would like to speak with them.
> (All of this is assuming that the RNG is not hooked up to some external > physical event > to get its random numbers rather than using a psuedo random number > generator)
Well, you've almost got it. You also have to show that the number of states of the system being driven by the pseudo-random number generator is finite as well. Otherwise, even though the string of numbers regenerates, the system it is driving may go through ever new combinations. Of course, in the absence of infinite storage capacity the system will have to have a finite number of states (otherwise, you'd have to be able to represent an infinite number of states in a finite machine).
All of this begs the question: does there exist a recurrent sequence of pseudo-random numbers and states within the the Nethack universe such that a character remains alive indefinitely. I believe, that as close as we can get to a proof lays in Dylan's strategy after a level has completely filled up with monsters. The state of the system at that point pretty much reduces to the turn counter which is the only thing which will change from one turn to the next. That is, no hunger or new monsters can be generated, and nothing else except for the turn counter and any message text for stuff on the level (pets, thrones, fountains, vaults, etc.) will be triggered. Thus, I would be inclined to believe that there is such a state and sequence. That sequence is, however, at a minimum 2^(n-1) turns long (where n is the byte size of the processor in bits) assuming a that nethack uses the usual poor rgn in most interpreted languages like C+. Thus, providing the instance (one sequence of numbers and the corresponding states) to prove that a character could survive indefinitely is theoretically possible but practically prohibitive.
Eva R. Myers wrote: > David Damerell <damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, > > >with non-zero probability?
> > No.
> > Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random > > numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be. > > You can't pray for food indefinitely. There is a nonzero chance that no > > food or edible corpses will be generated for a very long time. You can't > > reliably polymorph into a non-eating monster. Hence, you starve.
On the current Nethack, the RNG is periodic. So you should not survive *any* set of random numbers, only those sets which RNG can generate.
As for the abstract "ideal nethack", if you make food faster than eat it, there is a non-zero probability that you never be out of food.
Here is the related question: suppose you genocided all genocidable monsters and killed all unique monsters. Which other monsters can appear on level 1?
gren...@uiuc.edu (David Grenier) wrote: >On 16 Feb 2000 17:39:25 +0000 (GMT), David Damerell ><damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>Bagpuss <MAT...@leeds.ac.spamuk.leeds.ac.uk> wrote: >>>damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: >>>>Dan <r...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Does exist a strategy which allows you to live infinitely long, >>>>>with non-zero probability? >>>>Assertion; if such a strategy exists, it can survive any set of random >>>>numbers. Hence, I can wonder about just how pathological the RNG can be. >>>Not true. To have a non-zero probablity of success, it must work for at > least >>>*one* set of random numbers, the answer's still no, though, I think.
>>Oh, FFS. Doesn't anyone think before posting? He's talking about surviving >>_infinitely_ long; any _finite_ series of numbers will be generated by the >>RNG in that period. A strategy that works for only some sets of random >>numbers has a non-zero probability of success for any finite (even >>extremely long) period, but not for an infinite one.
>>[More precisely, the probability of such a strategy succeeding tends to >>zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.]
>Not a horribly brilliant proof, and it doesn't even have the virtue of >being correct. Oh well...
>The probability of a specific strategy will only approach zero as the >number of turns in the game tends to infinity if the strategy is >unsound. Even given that stipulation, such a strategy still has a >positive, albeit negligible, chance of surviving infinitely. Suppose >for a moment that every number the RNG generates can be likened to a >single digit, so those digits, if laid out one after the other, would >reveal an irrational real number. Let's also assume that for two >specific values of that number, pi and e, the attempt will succeed. >The probability of succeeding after the first turn is .2, after the >second turn it is .02, after the third .002, ad infinitum. The limit >as the function approaches infinity is zero, but the actual value of >the function as it approaches infinity is (.2)*(.1)^(infinity), while >infintesimally small, is a positive number.
>Perhaps you should think a little harder before posting responses out >of your apparent field?
No, he was right. I didn't think properly before posting and I rushed out the reply because I had to dash off to a maths lecture (oh, the irony). 1^infinity is not a positive number, unless you're working with some odd definition, of which the rest of us are unaware. To try to prove this: between any two real numbers, there is an infinite number of real numbers (the axiom of completeness IIRC), but between 0 and .1^infinity, there is not a gap, so there are no numbers between them, therefore if .1^infinty is a real number, then it is 0.
-- Richard Smeltzer But it can still be a brighter day, all I need are some cooking utensils and my special party hat...
>If there were one particular finite series of random numbers that would >kill you no matter _what_ your situation was when it came up, then >your probability of surviving infinitely long would be zero. E.g., if >But if the series of random numbers it would take to kill you is not >fixed but tending to increase in length over time, then your >probability of surviving infinitely long need no longer be zero. This
What Eva says is correct; I should have been more clear. -- David/Kirsty Damerell. damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris! |___| You bought a mask: I put it on: you never thought to ask me if I wear | | | it when you're gone. The Sisters of Mercy: When You Don't See Me.
David Grenier <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote: ><damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>[More precisely, the probability of such a strategy succeeding tends to >>zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.] >positive, albeit negligible, chance of surviving infinitely. Suppose >for a moment that every number the RNG generates can be likened to a >single digit, so those digits, if laid out one after the other, would >reveal an irrational real number. Let's also assume that for two >specific values of that number, pi and e, the attempt will succeed. >The probability of succeeding after the first turn is .2, after the >second turn it is .02, after the third .002, ad infinitum. The limit >as the function approaches infinity is zero, but the actual value of >the function as it approaches infinity is (.2)*(.1)^(infinity), while >infintesimally small, is a positive number.
... tending to zero as the number of turns tends to infinity - so inasmuch as 'surviving an infinite number of turns' is a meaningful concept, the probability of it is zero. Nice try.
>Perhaps you should think a little harder before posting responses out >of your apparent field?
You're awfully stroppy for someone who's talking crap. -- David/Kirsty Damerell. damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris! |___| You bought a mask: I put it on: you never thought to ask me if I wear | | | it when you're gone. The Sisters of Mercy: When You Don't See Me.
>Well, I'm not a mathematician but I've noticed one error that just >about everyone has made. That is, you have been making calculations >based on true random sequences while Nethack uses only pseudo-random >numbers. To quote (not necessary the exact words) von Neumann:
NetHack _might_ use the system random number source, which might use something like Linux's /dev/random which is based on real-world events.
I think we should assume a truly random random number generator for this exercise, personally. -- David/Kirsty Damerell. damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk CUWoCS President. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/ Hail Eris! |___| You bought a mask: I put it on: you never thought to ask me if I wear | | | it when you're gone. The Sisters of Mercy: When You Don't See Me.
<damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >David Grenier <gren...@uiuc.edu> wrote: >><damer...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >>>[More precisely, the probability of such a strategy succeeding tends to >>>zero as the number of turns tends to infinity.] >>positive, albeit negligible, chance of surviving infinitely. Suppose >>for a moment that every number the RNG generates can be likened to a >>single digit, so those digits, if laid out one after the other, would >>reveal an irrational real number. Let's also assume that for two >>specific values of that number, pi and e, the attempt will succeed. >>The probability of succeeding after the first turn is .2, after the >>second turn it is .02, after the third .002, ad infinitum. The limit >>as the function approaches infinity is zero, but the actual value of >>the function as it approaches infinity is (.2)*(.1)^(infinity), while >>infintesimally small, is a positive number.
>... tending to zero as the number of turns tends to infinity - so inasmuch >as 'surviving an infinite number of turns' is a meaningful concept, the >probability of it is zero. Nice try.
Thank you. You know, I wouldn't have complained if you had added "for all practical purposes" to your definition. Infintesimals are *not* zero, but they are considered to be zero for all practical purposes. Mind you, I haven't happened upon a branch of mathematics where it matters yet, but I know one exists...
>>Perhaps you should think a little harder before posting responses out >>of your apparent field?
>You're awfully stroppy for someone who's talking crap.
Oh, and you aren't? :-) No, I don't mean that as an insult. I just find it humerous...