# computerised random number generation & infinity

Quasi-empiricism in mathematics

the value of the more frequent results gives more value to those numbers in a mathamatical equation.
if deriving a value of the results as a sum of the function. not all numbers have equal value of probability based on the sum of results of numbers chosen.

is it possible to write the equation backwards to derive a statistical value of probability based on the frequency of a number being selected ?
if so, can this be programed in to a computer to have an algorythem that selects numbers in a manner that is equal to all number values given the results of statistical probaility gives rise to an unequal result or variance ?

metaphorically speaking turning the bell curve into a orb/circle that has all results equal to the position of the point of slection ?

to illistrate my concept which is probably very very difficult for many to grasp.

when you have a set of values arrise from the probability being genericaly large(smaller)(say 1000 numbers/genes genomes etc what ever...)
when put through a machine for selection do some numbers come up more than once and some never ? as a result of that process.
is the end result as a value equal to the probaility being equal from the start ?
(this is an open philisophical(loose) debate about random number generation via statistical probaility methods and the values they present)

discuss...

Last edited:
RainbowSingularity, numbers have an inherent value defined by the symbols used to present them.

RainbowSingularity, numbers have an inherent value defined by the symbols used to present them.
Since those symbols were defined, invented and applied by humans, they are not inherent.

Since those symbols were defined, invented and applied by humans, they are not inherent.
binary sequential codification is inherantly human as a form of language.
im not sure i entirely agree as soon as hmuans start to use it.
rendering language to define mathamatics is a process of human language thus interpretation is subjective to pre assigned terms of reference... REGARDLES of the actual value of the natured subject(mathamatics of the universe etc)
philisophical debate subject ?

binary sequential codification is inherantly human as a form of language

rendering language to define mathamatics is a process of human language thus interpretation is subjective to pre assigned terms of reference... REGARDLES of the actual value of the natured subject
Capitalization and punctuation would greatly aid in parsing your posts, helping readers determine one thought from the next.
I am unable to glean your intended point from the above. It reads like mansplaining.
Perhaps someone else can deduce how it informs the subject?

Capitalization and punctuation would greatly aid in parsing your posts, helping readers determine one thought from the next.
I am unable to glean your intended point from the above. It reads like mansplaining.
Perhaps someone else can deduce how it informs the subject?

capitalisation AND punctuation ?
grasping at straws ?
tagging on mansplaining ? lol yet the reader is reading through you ?

... mansplaining ?

appearance & intent vs meaning & factualised opinion etc etc.

how does that strawman thing work ?
you change the subject to be about the person instead of the content to distract from the content ?
is that how it works ?

cheap !