The Very-Many-Questions-Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread Thread XLII

[Cutlass]

Do revolvers jam, much? Russian roulette with a magazine approaches 1:1 odds of bang.

Generally speaking, no. But there are a million different models made. So some may from time to time. As a whole, they are reliable.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Generally speaking, no.

How 'bout 142-chamber revolvers?

 

[Plains-Cow]

How 'bout 142-chamber revolvers?

That's a lot of hallways with revolving doors.

Hahaha

 

[Cutlass]

How 'bout 142-chamber revolvers?

Does it actually exist?

 

[Gori the Grey]

OMG, no! That's my damn point!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Gatling gun?

 

[Samson]

Does it actually exist?

I originally suggested it as a "thought experiment" to help conceptualize that 1/142 is not that unlikely.

Gatling gun?

If you are willing to play russian roulette with a gatling gun I do not think the thought experiment works

 

[Gori the Grey]

That one wouldn't regard a 1 in 142 chance of dying as a low risk of dying.

My joke was that the physics of such a revolver (once it moved out of the thought experiment stage) would mean that it would inevitably jam, so your risk of death would be 0 in 142. And that you would regard as a low risk of dying.

You people are hopeless!

 

[Cutlass]

That one wouldn't regard a 1 in 142 chance of dying as a low risk of dying.

My joke was that the physics of such a revolver (once it moved out of the thought experiment stage) would mean that it would inevitably jam, so your risk of death would be 0 in 142. And that you would regard as a low risk of dying.

You people are hopeless!

Nothing in physics prevents its manufacture. Just it's practical use.

 

[Gori the Grey]

. . . for Russian Roulette!

 

[Samson]

That one wouldn't regard a 1 in 142 chance of dying as a low risk of dying.

My joke was that the physics of such a revolver (once it moved out of the thought experiment stage) would mean that it would inevitably jam, so your risk of death would be 0 in 142. And that you would regard as a low risk of dying.

You people are hopeless!

Your argument is not that strong though. Just because there are far better ways of giving people lots of shots without reloading than a revolver does not mean they could not build one. If they can make chips with tolerances at the edge of quantum effects, and they could make the below in the olden days, I am not convinced that if you were rich enough to pay people to play russian roulette you could not make a working 142 shot revolver.

Spoiler The below :

 

[Birdjaguar]

Alec Baldwin lost on his first pull of the trigger!

 

[Plains-Cow]

Make large-diameter revolver cylinder with 142 barrels.

Make rails for inserting standard revolver on each barrel.

Make it mountable and spin-able like Wheel of Fortune wheel.

Have the person taking the risk spin the wheel.

Person slides revolver onto rail system to make firing pin and barrel w/ possible bullet flush.

Pulls trigger.

Game ready!

 

[Gori the Grey]

Until somebody actually manufactures one of the objects that you are imagining, Samson and -Cow, I feel comfortable that I can stick to my boast, and still die of some cause other than a self-inflicted bullet-wound to the head.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do they make 142-chamber revolvers much? (Was my point) (No, and for a reason) (And that reason is?) (Because that's would require a crazy-sized cylinder relative to the handle, trigger and barrel) (And that sized cylinder would therefore jam) (What's your evidence for that?) (The non-existence of 142-chamber revolvers)

You need a cookie, Farm Boy.

Cookies take up cheesespace!

Spoiler 30s work pretty well :

 

[Samson]

Could the US have captured and examined that ballon if they wanted to?

 

[Kyriakos]

Also, what do you mean "tens of times"? In Civ 4, that gives you the combat odds, I wonder how many times I have attacked with combat odds of 99.3% (1/144 chance of losing)? I reckon it is between 10^4 and 10^5, BICBW.

But that would depend on the algorithm - I assume it is established that those are the odds. Maybe civ (intuitively, this would seem highly likely, since you tend to lose with much stronger units 1/3 or 1/4 times in practice...) has a variation which also takes into account the result of the previous few turns of combat?

 

[Samson]

But that would depend on the algorithm - I assume it is established that those are the odds. Maybe civ (intuitively, this would seem highly likely, since you tend to lose with much stronger units 1/3 or 1/4 times in practice...) has a variation which takes into account the result of the previous few turns of combat?

I think the RNG has been pretty well proven to be random and not that.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think the RNG has been pretty well proven to be random and not that.

What does "random" mean in this context? Pure randomness isn't possible afaik in a computer setting.
Theoretically, if something has 1/x chance to occur, it means that if that something is done a vast number of times (and not simply x times) it will occur once per x.

Of course, as you said, you are the statistician. I don't doubt you know a lot more on this ^^

 

[Samson]

What does "random" mean in this context? Pure randomness isn't possible afaik in a computer setting.

In the normal computer world you are right, they are pseudorandom rather than random. There are some specifications they have to have, things like the distribution of the numbers and the length of the sequence until it repeats I think. I definitely means that they do not change the odds under the hood as a result of previous combats.

That are real hardware random number generators, I am always surprised how hard it is. I would have thought there would be enough things that you can measure accurately cheaply that it will make random noise inside a computer.