Talk:Garbage: Difference between revisions

From TetrisWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
[[User:Aioobe|Aioobe]] 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
[[User:Aioobe|Aioobe]] 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


You're right: that doesn't equal 1/900. It should look like:
:You're right. That doesn't equal 1/900. It should look like:


1/1000+1/(10^4)+1/(10^5)+1/(10^6)+1/(10^7)+1/(10^8)+1/(10^9)+1/(10^10)+1/(10^11)+1/(10^12)+1/(10^13)+1/(10^14)+1/(10^15)+1/(10^16)+1/(10^17)+1/(10^18) = 0.00111111111 In which case, 1/900 is a lot more accurate than 1/1000.
:1/1000+1/(10^4)+1/(10^5)+1/(10^6)+1/(10^7)+1/(10^8)+1/(10^9)+1/(10^10)+1/(10^11)+1/(10^12)+1/(10^13)+1/(10^14)+1/(10^15)+1/(10^16)+1/(10^17)+1/(10^18) = 0.00111111111 In which case, 1/900 is a lot more accurate than 1/1000.


The reason it's not just 1/1000 is because you could get five in a row, and six in a row, all the way up to twenty, and all could work for a tetris. You have a 1 in 900 chance of getting any of those instances. Right? You may know better, since I'm not mathematician.
:The reason it's not just 1/1000 is because you could get five in a row, and six in a row, all the way up to twenty, and all could work for a tetris. You have a 1 in 900 chance of getting any of those instances. Right? You may know better, since I'm not mathematician.


[[Special:Contributions/74.241.120.45|74.241.120.45]] 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:[[Special:Contributions/74.241.120.45|74.241.120.45]] 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:22, 9 December 2008

Just a side note; I'd like to thank 72.150.8.234 for cleaning up my cruddy use of obsolete Tetris terms. ^^ --70.104.240.216 18:04, 5 April 2006 (EDT)




Garbage In-Depth

How does the math work behind the calculation of 4 aligned rows? It looks nonsense to me. Why wouldn't it be calculated as 2 and 3 aligned rows? I'm assuming that the garbage consists of one random gap in an otherwise filled row. First gap can be anywhere, second gap must be on the same column (1:10) same with second gap (1:10) and fourth gap (1:10). The events are independent and can thus be multiplied together: 1*1/10*1/10*1/10 = 1/1000. Besides,

calc "1/(1/1000+10^4+10^5+10^6+10^7+10^8+10^9+10^10+10^11+10^12+10^13+10^14+10^15+10^16+10^17+10^18)"

~0.00000000000000000090

Is not 1/900 as suggested.

Aioobe 10:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. That doesn't equal 1/900. It should look like:
1/1000+1/(10^4)+1/(10^5)+1/(10^6)+1/(10^7)+1/(10^8)+1/(10^9)+1/(10^10)+1/(10^11)+1/(10^12)+1/(10^13)+1/(10^14)+1/(10^15)+1/(10^16)+1/(10^17)+1/(10^18) = 0.00111111111 In which case, 1/900 is a lot more accurate than 1/1000.
The reason it's not just 1/1000 is because you could get five in a row, and six in a row, all the way up to twenty, and all could work for a tetris. You have a 1 in 900 chance of getting any of those instances. Right? You may know better, since I'm not mathematician.
74.241.120.45 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)