Anon (not) Exposed - [HOAX]

reply to post by boondock-saint

now what are the odds that the
text string created can have
a linear meaning and connections
to each other AFTER it is generated ??
Like say for example

atfciafbiss

which can be broken up as
ATF, CIA, FBI, SS (Secret Service)

the odds for a perfect sequence is 3,670,344,486,987,776 to 1 !!!! (26 to the 11th power)

I'm not even sure how to spell it !!

3.7 Quadrillion : 1

(the national debt in the year 2020 !)


and remember this is only with capitol or small letters !

mixing would give numbers with no names !

www.jimloy.com...

EDIT to add link www.jimloy.com...

Originally posted by dsm1664
reply to post by xuenchen

 

xuenchen
out Foxing the Foxes!
Member
Registered: 22-9-2010
Location: Las Vegas, USA

Figures!

...oh and a pun as well.

you forgot...

Mood: out-Foxed!
Member is on ATS now.



can't wait till boon sees all the numbers !!!!

i bet he quits playing blackjack !

a few more comparisons

Odds of bowling a 300 game: 11,500 to 1

Odds of getting a hole in one: 5,000 to 1

Odds of getting canonized: 20,000,000 to 1

Odds of being an astronaut: 13,200,000 to 1

Odds of winning an Olympic medal: 662,000 to 1

Odds of an American speaking Cherokee: 15,000 to 1

Odds of being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1

Odds of being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1

Odds of being murdered: 18,000 to 1
.......

There's More !

incidentally,

this math is called the "Infinite Monkey Theorem" ..... no joke !

Read All ABout It !

Not to be confused with Hundredth monkey effect.

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey, but a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe is extremely low, but not zero.

Probabilities

Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 26^20 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376 (almost 2 × 10^28). In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small they can barely be conceived in human terms. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters.[note 3] Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10^183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10^183,946,[note 4] or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10^360,783.[note 5]

are there any members here that went to M.I.T. ?

"Million to one chance pop up nine times out of ten."

~Rincewind, Wizzard of Unseen University, Anhk-Morpork.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Sorry, like SkepticOverlord stated, you can't calculate the odds of it happening without knowing the algorithm that created it. You would have to assume they use the entire alphabet, or part of the alphabet. You would have to make several other assumptions as well.

If you look at the list of e-mails I posted a while ago you will see one of them started with "GM". I think the similarity can give you a good insight into how often that shows up.

Also, what you are suggesting is a fallacy. The odds you should be calculating is the odds of a conspiracy theorist grasping at anything and finding/creating something from nothing. The odds of a conspiracy theorist seeing abbreviations of corporations and or government agencies in a random string of text when they are already dead set on it being there is very high.

The mind is a funny thing... it can see patterns quite easily. Especially if they are looking for patterns. The odds of you seeing patterns in noise are quite high...

Here is a good read:

Patternicity: Finding Meaningful Patterns In Meaningless Noise.

You should also read this:

Confirmation Bias

By the way, you are being helped.... You just don't listen.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
You see my point ???

As mentioned, such output depends on the nature of the programming. And with hundreds of clients (possibly thousands), random coincidences will happen.