whywontgodhealamputees.com
Dead Zone => The Bottomless Pit => Topic started by: Master on October 08, 2009, 12:43:14 PM

Here is something that looks so weird, it is about the member "Gnu Ordure", here you are what I am talking about:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/mipcwi.png)
Is it some kind of miracle?, I am very interested who can calculate the normal probability of such thing to happen?

um... simple, he posted 1111 times?

um... simple, he posted 1111 times?
:D no buddy, not that simple

I don't know...
On somewhat of a side note we should have a party for Hermes when he reaches 10,000 posts. If he keeps going at the rate he is now that will happen in about 75 days...
Mark your calenders.

Here is something that looks so weird, it is about the member "Gnu Ordure", here you are what I am talking about:
Is it some kind of miracle?, I am very interested who can calculate the normal probability of such thing to happen?
He has posted 1111 times. I've posted 3022 times ( as of this post ), that means I have hit 1111 once and 2222 once, and I will hit 3333 once provided I continue posting.
What exactly are you not understanding? What is weird?

I think he's making a quip about how people always say "What are the odds that the universe is exactly like this?!" as proof for God. At least, that's what I got out of it.

Well, how many times have members here hit the magic 666 posts and not been smited? Oh, what about 1000? I didn't hear any bells or see party streamers pop out of the walls..
It's just 1111... as Porky would say,,,,abadea, abadea, abadea...big deal..
Just for clarification I have always been able to mimic Porky Pig and over the years have worked out the spelling of his stuttering ;D

OK, Ok I give. WTF are you talking about?

He has posted 1111 times. I've posted 3022 times ( as of this post ), that means I have hit 1111 once and 2222 once, and I will hit 3333 once provided I continue posting.
What exactly are you not understanding? What is weird?
That is a very good point, but the situation should still seem weird.I think he's making a quip about how people always say "What are the odds that the universe is exactly like this?!" as proof for God. At least, that's what I got out of it.
Not exactly, something much like this, I really want to point out to the subject of musicales, they just come out of ignorance.

Well, how many times have members here hit the magic 666 posts and not been smited? Oh, what about 1000? I didn't hear any bells or see party streamers pop out of the walls..
It's just 1111
No, 666 has a much lower normal probability to occur than 1111, so do 1000.

No, 666 has a much lower normal probability to occur than 1111, so do 1000.
And why would you think that? If I continue to post, I'll rack up the pointless tally of posts under my avatar. 400,401,402,403, and so on toward 1111, 1112,1113.

No, 666 has a much lower normal probability to occur than 1111, so do 1000.
And why would you think that? If I continue to post, I'll rack up the pointless tally of posts under my avatar. 400,401,402,403, and so on toward 1111, 1112,1113.
That is true, but the question is simply, how frequent does something like "1111" happen and noticed?

Well I don't understand probability or statistics and all that, but doesn't the fact that Gnu posted 1111 times mean there is a probability of 1:1 that he will post 1111 times? Is it weird to assume that he will post 1112 times? Please splain it to me.

how frequent does something like "1111" happen and noticed?
Don't know. How often does it get noticed and then discussed. Only once I hope. :)

Well I don't understand probability or statistics and all that, but doesn't the fact that Gnu posted 1111 times mean there is a probability of 1:1 that he will post 1111 times?
That is true, the probability that he would do before doing was surely 1, but since we don't know all factors that determined\caused this to happen, we should talk about probability.
Is it weird to assume that he will post 1112 times? Please splain it to me.
Fine, 1112 happens very frequently since we would have the same impression if it was "1113" or "1114" or "1115", but we got a different and rare impression when it is "1111" or "2222" and so on, so it happens very infrequently.

Ok, yesterday I looked at the clock at 4:44 pm. Often I look at the clock and it is something like that, perhaps 3:33. One time I looked at a clock and it was 01:23:45. How does one figure the probability of something like this happening 1 time, or multiplt times?

Well I don't understand probability or statistics and all that, but doesn't the fact that Gnu posted 1111 times mean there is a probability of 1:1 that he will post 1111 times?
That is true, the probability that he would do before doing was surely 1, but since we don't know all factors that determined\caused this to happen, we should talk about probability.
1 and it will always be 1.
Is it weird to assume that he will post 1112 times? Please splain it to me.
Fine, 1112 happens very frequently since we would have the same impression if it was "1113" or "1114" or "1115", but we got a different and rare impression when it is "1111" or "2222" and so on, so it happens very infrequently.
There is no difference between 1112 and 1111 they represent 2 numbers that if we counted 1 to 1113 there would be a probability of 1 that it occurs.
The fact you that you notice it at 1111 is irrelevant, as irrelevant if you had noticed it at 1112. You're assining special meaning where none exist, then pleading for special meaning that you can't justify.

There is no difference between 1112 and 1111 they represent 2 numbers that if we counted 1 to 1113 there would be a probability of 1 that it occurs.
Sorry, but you just can't sense probability
To help you, in a much larger scale, let in playing cards one player gets the same set of 4 cards for a whole 20 deals(52 cards deals), the probability of such to happen is unimaginably small, let it happens before your eyes, will you say: well it is just 4 cards

There is no difference between 1112 and 1111 they represent 2 numbers that if we counted 1 to 1113 there would be a probability of 1 that it occurs.
Sorry, but you just can't sense probability
What? If you count from 1 to 10
There is a probability of exactly 1 that you hit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
You will hit that number what you do, it is inevitable when you count to 10. How stupid can you possibly be?
And again.. you've omitted most of post and responded to a very obscure part of it that you can't even explain what is wrong with it.
To help you, in a much larger scale, let in playing cards one player gets the same set of 4 cards for a whole 20 deals(52 cards deals), the probability of such to happen is unimaginably small, let it happens before your eyes, will you say: well it is just 4 cards
This analogy has nothing to do with hitting 1 integer in a list of integers that will always include every integer in that list. 1111 will always appear in a least of 1111 or higher, its probability for doing so is always 1.
You seeing it as it hits 1111 is irrelevant. You have to explain why it is irrelevant. Then you could probably explain what the hell are you even getting at?

Some of you may be interested in the numbers of some of my other posts:
1 ,11, 111, 1111
2, 22, 222
3, 33, 333
4, 44, 444
5, 55, 555
6, 66, 666
7, 77, 777
8, 88, 888
9, 99, 999
10, 100, 1000
20, 200
30, 300
40, 400
50, 500
60, 600
70, 700
80, 800
90, 900
123, 234, 345, 456, 789
321, 432, 543, 654, 765, 876, 987
Let's not forget the primes:
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541
547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601
607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659
661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733
739 743 751 757 761 769 773 787 797 809
811 821 823 827 829 839 853 857 859 863
877 881 883 887 907 911 919 929 937 941
947 953 967 971 977 983 991 997 1009 1013
1019 1021 1031 1033 1039 1049 1051 1061 1063 1069
1087 1091 1093 1097 1103 1109
Please keep a lookout for my forthcoming book, Gnu Ordure's Big Book of Post Numbers, where I finally explain in detail the story behind each of these numbers, how they came to be chosen to appear with me on WWGHA, what they mean, and what their individual probabilities are.
Read the heartbreaking and yet inspiring story of number 666, who overcame incredible odds and horrendous prejudice and numberism before finally making his triumphant public appearance on WWGHA in April 09.
Order now to avoid disappointment.

I can't even understand what the poster is asking. I read the sentence and I think some of the words are in wrong places. I have no idea what this thread is about.

Some of you may be interested in the numbers of some of my other posts:
1 ,11, 111, 1111
2, 22, 222
3, 33, 333
4, 44, 444
5, 55, 555
6, 66, 666
7, 77, 777
8, 88, 888
9, 99, 999
10, 100, 1000
20, 200
30, 300
40, 400
50, 500
60, 600
70, 700
80, 800
90, 900
123, 234, 345, 456, 789
321, 432, 543, 654, 765, 876, 987
Let's not forget the primes:
2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541
547 557 563 569 571 577 587 593 599 601
607 613 617 619 631 641 643 647 653 659
661 673 677 683 691 701 709 719 727 733
739 743 751 757 761 769 773 787 797 809
811 821 823 827 829 839 853 857 859 863
877 881 883 887 907 911 919 929 937 941
947 953 967 971 977 983 991 997 1009 1013
1019 1021 1031 1033 1039 1049 1051 1061 1063 1069
1087 1091 1093 1097 1103 1109
Please keep a lookout for my forthcoming book, Gnu Ordure's Big Book of Post Numbers, where I finally explain in detail the story behind each of these numbers, how they came to be chosen to appear with me on WWGHA, what they mean, and what their individual probabilities are.
Read the heartbreaking and yet inspiring story of number 666, who overcame incredible odds and horrendous prejudice and numberism before finally making his triumphant public appearance on WWGHA in April 09.
Order now to avoid disappointment.
And about 2.2% of the posters on the forum have already hit every single number Gnu has ( including myself ) and more.
That is over 1 out of 50, and the likelihood of seeing it is also depending on the activity of the members on the forum. Which it is more likely that you're going to have encounters with the more active members on the forum who will naturally have more post. Not to mention the ever increasing # of posters who approach that # and onward, which there are about another .5% that are within a 100 posts or less of it.

the variables are too many to consider calculating the odds of reaching 1111 posts
end of topic

And about 2.2% of the posters on the forum have already hit every single number Gnu has ( including myself ) and more.
That is over 1 out of 50, and the likelihood of seeing it is also depending on the activity of the members on the forum. Which it is more likely that you're going to have encounters with the more active members on the forum who will naturally have more post. Not to mention the ever increasing # of posters who approach that # and onward, which there are about another .5% that are within a 100 posts or less of it.
Sorry, had to go for a while,
Fine, people, we are on the same side, really, Omen, you have just get to another important determinant in calculating the normal probability of "1111" posts, the number of active members whose posts counter are around, I am not saying it is so improbable, in contrary, I will calculate the probability for you if no one show and say he can, I am just defending against Omen's claim that there is nothing special about "1111" more than "1112"

monkeymind:
Ok, yesterday I looked at the clock at 4:44 pm. Often I look at the clock and it is something like that, perhaps 3:33. One time I looked at a clock and it was 01:23:45
Last night I glanced at my clock and it said 6:66 pm.
I woke up screaming.
And about 2.2% of the posters on the forum have already hit every single number Gnu has ( including myself ) and more.
Wtf, Omen? Have other people been using my numbers? That's plagiarism. You'll be hearing from my people.

Some of you may be interested in the numbers of some of my other posts:
1 ,11, 111, 1111
2, 22, 222
3, 33, 333
4, 44, 444
Nothing you have mentioned is as improbable as "1111", don't you agree that "1111" happens much more infrequently than "11"

Please keep a lookout for my forthcoming book, Gnu Ordure's Big Book of Post Numbers, where I finally explain in detail the story behind each of these numbers, how they came to be chosen to appear with me on WWGHA, what they mean, and what their individual probabilities are.
Read the heartbreaking and yet inspiring story of number 666, who overcame incredible odds and horrendous prejudice and numberism before finally making his triumphant public appearance on WWGHA in April 09.
Order now to avoid disappointment.
Haha :D
Edit: On a side note, something tells me the OP finds the Bible Code interesting.

Last night I glanced at my clock and it said 6:66 pm.
Wait...what?
I often notice the clock when it is 13:37, those who hang around the geeky parts of the net, will know that's an internet slang way of saying "elite"  could this be a sign that I am one of the elite, say, the chosen one? To do what I wonder?

Ok, yesterday I looked at the clock at 4:44 pm. Often I look at the clock and it is something like that, perhaps 3:33. One time I looked at a clock and it was 01:23:45. How does one figure the probability of something like this happening 1 time, or multiplt times?
Me too, it happens very frequently with me, the probability of such is 10\(10*10*10) = 1/100
let you noticed it 5 times, the probability is then (1/100)^5 = 1/10000000000 (one over ten billions), isn't that extremely improbable?
Edit; Oh sorry, the probability in the clock stuff isn't as I established above, I considered that each of the three places of time units (hours, and two places for minutes) I considered them as if they all could take valuse ranging from 0 to 9, but actually the first place for minutes can only take values ranging from 0 to 5, so the calculation is not correct, but still it is something around that

And about 2.2% of the posters on the forum have already hit every single number Gnu has ( including myself ) and more.
That is over 1 out of 50, and the likelihood of seeing it is also depending on the activity of the members on the forum. Which it is more likely that you're going to have encounters with the more active members on the forum who will naturally have more post. Not to mention the ever increasing # of posters who approach that # and onward, which there are about another .5% that are within a 100 posts or less of it.
Sorry, had to go for a while,
Fine, people, we are on the same side, really, Omen, you have just get to another important determinant in calculating the normal probability of "1111" posts, the number of active members whose posts counter are around, I am not saying it is so improbable, in contrary, I will calculate the probability for you if no one show and say he can, I am just defending against Omen's claim that there is nothing special about "1111" more than "1112"
Your defending.. where? Where have you even offered the SLIGHTEST HINT that you have any reasoning to attach to 1111 over 1112 other then special pleading?

Your defending.. where? Where have you even offered the SLIGHTEST HINT that you have any reasoning to attach to 1111 over 1112 other then special pleading?
Here is what you are asking for:
"1111" has other 9 equivalent combinations, they are:(2222, 3333, 4444, ......, 9999) all equiprobable
While "1112" has much more equivalent combinations:(1113, 1114, ......, 1119, 2221, 2223, ......, 2229, ......, 9998) all equiprobable too

So your fascinated because a number came up, 1111 which isn't improbable. It happens all the time, many of us hit it. Heck if you wanted to you could deliberately post till you got and make a goodbye speech on post 1111.
As a counted progress (counting posts) there was no reason not to expect it. If it was a random number generator maybe it'd be improbable. As it is it's nothing. But a fleeting moment.

Your defending.. where? Where have you even offered the SLIGHTEST HINT that you have any reasoning to attach to 1111 over 1112 other then special pleading?
Here is what you are asking for:
"1111" has other 9 equivalent combinations, they are:(2222, 3333, 4444, ......, 9999) all equiprobable
While "1112" has much more equivalent combinations:(1113, 1114, ......, 1119, 2221, 2223, ......, 2229, ......, 9998) all equiprobable too
IRRELEVANT
You're talking about a SINGLE INTEGER ON A LINEAR SCALE IN WHICH EVERY INTEGER THAT COMES BEFORE THE LAST ONE HAS THE SAME EXACT PROBABILITY OF APPEARING.
1111 is equal to 1112
Now, simply because you happen to look at it while it hit 1111 is irrelevant, it doesn't get special meaning simply because YOU happen to see it. At least, it doesn't get any special significance that you have all the information to be able to determine.
Right now, it is just as equal to seeing it as 1112 as it is at 1111. We don't have to give a shit about any other number, because they all have an equal probability of being seen.

Now, simply because you happen to look at it while it hit 1111 is irrelevant, it doesn't get special meaning simply because YOU happen to see it.
What I am talking about here, is what is the probability that I could randomly have a look at the number during the period of time it was standing at "1111" it doesn't equal the probability of seeing "1112" at all
try to imagine it with a much extreme case, consider this one : "123456789" is it just a number, is it equiprobable to any other number, if your answer is yes, then I can't help you any better.

Now, simply because you happen to look at it while it hit 1111 is irrelevant, it doesn't get special meaning simply because YOU happen to see it.
What I am talking about here, is what is the probability that I could randomly have a look at the number during the period of time it was standing at "1111" it doesn't equal the probability of seeing "1112" at all
try to imagine it with a much extreme case, consider this one : "123456789" is it just a number, is it equiprobable to any other number, if your answer is yes, then I can't help you any better.
as i said before, there are too many variables to calculate the odds

Here is something that looks so weird, it is about the member "Gnu Ordure", here you are what I am talking about:
(http://i37.tinypic.com/mipcwi.png)
Is it some kind of miracle?, I am very interested who can calculate the normal probability of such thing to happen?
Well, at least we can offer Gnu's post number as support for Benford's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law)
Edit: And how scary is it that this post is my 100th ?!?!?!

as i said before, there are too many variables to calculate the odds
That is true, and if you could gather them all and make the calculation, with all the possible information involved, the result would be exactly 1, but as we can't get all the info, we use the probability to the best extent we can

There are no odds. It is one plus one, Repeat. End at 1111 or whatever arbitary number you think is important.

There are no odds. It is one plus one, Repeat. End at 1111 or whatever arbitary number you think is important.
the odds of a person looking at the number of posts by a member when it's *insert random number here*

Edit: And how scary is it that this post is my 100th ?!?!?!
About as scary as a black cat crossing in front of me, walking under a ladder, breaking a mirror, or opening an umbrella indoors. ;)
*Cue spooky music.

the odds of a person looking at the number of posts by a member when it's *insert random number here*
Very good, except that it is not odd just for any random number, but for a weird number like "1111" or "123456789"

the odds of a person looking at the number of posts by a member when it's *insert random number here*
Very good, except that it is not odd just for any random number, but for a weird number like "1111" or "123456789"
I find nothing weird about 1111 or any other number for that matter.

Now, simply because you happen to look at it while it hit 1111 is irrelevant, it doesn't get special meaning simply because YOU happen to see it.
What I am talking about here, is what is the probability that I could randomly have a look at the number during the period of time it was standing at "1111" it doesn't equal the probability of seeing "1112" at all
try to imagine it with a much extreme case, consider this one : "123456789" is it just a number, is it equiprobable to any other number, if your answer is yes, then I can't help you any better.
Doesn't matter, the chances of you having look at the number are not determinate upon what the number is
It being 1111 has no effect on when/how you looked at it, unless you were subconciously looking for it.
As I said before.. and I'm saying it again.. just because you look at it.. doesn't make it anymore 'special'. This is something you're assuming, you're essentially making up 'magic' at this point and then pleading for it.

Doesn't matter, the chances of you having look at the number are not determinate upon what the number is
It being 1111 has no effect on when/how you looked at it, unless you were subconciously looking for it.
As I said before.. and I'm saying it again.. just because you look at it.. doesn't make it anymore 'special'. This is something you're assuming, you're essentially making up 'magic' at this point and then pleading for it.
Even lower than subconsciously. The human brain loves patterns and recognizes them even when they're not there. For example the last 2 previous posters's before Omen post counts had the last two digits of 02 and then 03 when I read this the first time. Real pattern huh?

Doesn't matter, the chances of you having look at the number are not determinate upon what the number is
It being 1111 has no effect on when/how you looked at it, unless you were subconciously looking for it.
As I said before.. and I'm saying it again.. just because you look at it.. doesn't make it anymore 'special'. This is something you're assuming, you're essentially making up 'magic' at this point and then pleading for it.
Have you considered the case of "123456789" and thought about it?
If you have and still can't see what special about "1111" then you most probably need to learn probability or logic!
Answer this direct question please, is "1111" is as normal and frequently happening as "3"?

Answer this direct question please, is "1111" is as normal and frequently happening as "3"?
With regard to post count  no. Because many more members quit posting before reaching a post count of 1111 than the ones who reach 3. Just look at the member list and sort it.

Answer this direct question please, is "1111" is as normal and frequently happening as "3"?
With regard to post count  no. Because many more members quit posting before reaching a post count of 1111 than the ones who reach 3. Just look at the member list and sort it.
Great, is "1111" as normal as "2638"?
Hint: think of a more extreme case, compare "1111111111111111111" to "4679812457894312548" for example.

Great, is "1111" as normal as "2638"?
Hint: think of a more extreme case, compare "1111111111111111111" to "4679812457894312548" for example.
Do your own damn work.
Here's the member list, sort it yourself 
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=mlist

Do your own damn work.
Here's the member list, sort it yourself 
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?action=mlist
You missed the point, the question had two parts, frequency of occurrence, and being normal or usual, we have agreed that "1111" is not as frequent as "3", still the second part to go.

Fine people, I am sure that there are people out there who could make the calculation, but I won't wait, I will make it for you and show the point behind the topic:
there are four places for integers in this case, each place can only take an integer value from 0 to 9
the probability that the first takes exactly "1" is 1/10, the probability for the second place taking exactly 1 is also 1/10, the same for the third and fourth places
Now what is the probability that each place take "1" at the same time giving "1111"?
since the value of each place is independent on the other, then the probability of "1111" is (1/10)^4 = 1/10000
but we would have the same impression(the same degree of being normal\usual) if the number was "2222" or "3333", i.e all are equivalent, then the probability is nine times the last result, i.e 9/10000(some would ask why not 10/10000, the answer is that "0000" would never appear, so we have 9 equivalent combinations for "1111" instead of 10)
that is still too small probability, how could it happen, oh, have we considered the number of trials out of which it happened once? here is the point, many things appear to be weird just because we missestimate the actual number of trials, an issue totally related to human memory and recalling system, I didn't take in consideration how often I look at members posts counter, nor how many active members, a man worshiping a caw, will think that the caw often answers his prayers, because when he recalls he doesn't recall the unanswered prayers,(never heard someone saying:"I once prayed and wasn't answered"), that is it, in the same manner one can show that almost everything that people think to be a "miracle" is just the reflection of normal probability of occurrence.

I posted a post whose number was 3333, once. That occurs even more rarely than Gnu's minor instance of 1111. I even went back and dug up the pst, here:
So what is the simplest cell in existence today?
I for one don't know, but could you please explain the relevance of this question to the subject matter?
There were 16 more posts on that page after mine, so although the user "sam" never did reply to my post, it's reasonable to assume that some people did see it.
My question is, so what? Some people were almost guaranteed to have seen my post #3333, and notice the "3333" in it, on looking at that page. I would consider it a pretty minor occurance. You, apparently, would differ on that. Why, M?

Fine people, I am sure that there are people out there who could make the calculation, but I won't wait, I will make it for you and show the point behind the topic:
there are four places for integers in this case, each place can only take an integer value from 0 to 9
the probability that the first takes exactly "1" is 1/10, the probability for the second place taking exactly 1 is also 1/10, the same for the third and fourth places
Now what is the probability that each place take "1" at the same time giving "1111"?
since the value of each place is independent on the other, then the probability of "1111" is (1/10)^4 = 1/10000
but we would have the same impression(the same degree of being normal\usual) if the number was "2222" or "3333", i.e all are equivalent, then the probability is nine times the last result, i.e 9/10000(some would ask why not 10/10000, the answer is that "0000" would never appear, so we have 9 equivalent combinations for "1111" instead of 10)
that is still too small probability, how could it happen, oh, have we considered the number of trials out of which it happened once? here is the point, many things appear to be weird just because we missestimate the actual number of trials, an issue totally related to human memory and recalling system, I didn't take in consideration how often I look at members posts counter, nor how many active members, a man worshiping a caw, will think that the caw often answers his prayers, because when he recalls he doesn't recall the unanswered prayers,(never heard someone saying:"I once prayed and wasn't answered"), that is it, in the same manner one can show that almost everything that people think to be a "miracle" is just the reflection of normal probability of occurrence.
I'll keep this subtle... you're crazy

I would consider it a pretty minor occurance. You, apparently, would differ on that. Why, M?
I suppose you get this feeling for seeing me having very little agreements here with members, but that is not rising from my side, people here seem like having problems showing agreement with me!
anyway, no, I don't differ on that too much.

I'll keep this subtle... you're crazy
Couldn't get your point!

I'll keep this subtle... you're crazy
Couldn't get your point!
Which is probably why you're crazy :)

I would consider it a pretty minor occurance. You, apparently, would differ on that. Why, M?
I suppose you get this feeling for seeing me having very little agreements here with members, but that is not rising from my side, people here seem like having problems showing agreement with me!
anyway, no, I don't differ on that too much.
If you "don't differ with me" on this, then that means that you agree it's a minor occurance. If so, then why bring up the even more minor occurance of having seen Gnu's "post #1111"?

If you "don't differ with me" on this, then that means that you agree it's a minor occurance. If so, then why bring up the even more minor occurance of having seen Gnu's "post #1111"?
Oh, there may be a misunderstanding, did you mean "rare" by using "minor", I thought so!

Azdgari:
Some people were almost guaranteed to have seen my post #3333, and notice the "3333" in it, on looking at that page
Not just that page, Azd. At that time, all 3333 of your posts on the forum would feature that number. The important variable is the length of time before you posted your next post. If you immediately made another post, like 30 seconds later, very few people would see the 3333. But if you went on holiday for two weeks, loads of people would notice it.
Mister:
everything that people think to be a "miracle" is just the reflection of normal probability of occurrence
er, right, but that's the opposite of what you seemed to be saying in the OP. You seemed to be saying that it was unlikely to spot a post number like 1111; now you're saying that it's normal.
people here seem like having problems showing agreement with me!
How old are you, M? Just curious.
Gnu.

The important variable is the length of time before you posted your next post.
Exactly, correct and very wellsaid.
er, right, but that's the opposite of what you seemed to be saying in the OP. You seemed to be saying that it was unlikely to spot a post number like 1111; now you're saying that it's normal.
I am sorry, I didn't mean it to appear like this, I was just waiting for someone to make the calculation and see how many variable he will take in consideration to show that the probability of the "1111"is not as tiny as it seems.
How old are you, M? Just curious.
I would like to keep it private, so I will tell you in a PM.

The important variable is the length of time before you posted your next post.
True that. Apparently, it was over an hour. So it's likely that a lot of people saw my "3333".
If you "don't differ with me" on this, then that means that you agree it's a minor occurance. If so, then why bring up the even more minor occurance of having seen Gnu's "post #1111"?
Oh, there may be a misunderstanding, did you mean "rare" by using "minor", I thought so!
The internet has dictionaries available, M. While it may be difficult to translate sentences accurately, singleword translations should not be a problem for you. I meant minor. As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention. Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.

I meant minor. As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention. Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.
Fine, now I get it, no, I differ on that too much, realizing how tiny 9/10000 is(as an apparent normal probability of occurrence) you should know why, unless you are not convinced with my calculation.

I meant minor. As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention. Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.
Fine, now I get it, no differ on that too much, realizing how tiny 9/10000 is(as an apparent normal probability of occurrence) you should know why, unless you are not convinced with my calculation.
lol let it go, you pretty much put this thread in a nose dive. Give it a rest before you do some more damage.

I meant minor. As in, unimportant, trivial, not worthy of mention. Respond to what I write, not to what I don't write.
Fine, now I get it, no, I differ on that too much, realizing how tiny 9/10000 is(as an apparent normal probability of occurrence) you should know why, unless you are not convinced with my calculation.
It's not a 9/10000 probability of occurance. It's a 1/1 probability. For any poster who continues posting past 3333, the probability will always be 1/1. Again, you fail at statistics. Go back to school.

Again, you fail at statistics. Go back to school.
Actually I got fired from school, because my teachers couldn't stand the fact that I was way better than them :D
I am calculating here how frequent such wired number shows up, and that is an essential determinant to the probability that someone would capture it!
Don't feel so embarrassed :[

Sigh. I'll try to simplify this for you, M.
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud. What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?

Actually I got fired from school, because my teachers couldn't stand the fact that I was way better than them
That's not something to be proud of
I am calculating here how frequent such wired number shows up, and that is an essential determinant to the probability that someone would capture it!
your previous statement worries me about your ability to calculate
Don't feel so embarrassed
Please never bring up anything about school again, you've already embarrassed yourself enough.
I'd really hate to see you embarass yourself more.

Sigh. I'll try to simplify this for you, M.
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud. What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
I didn't need that simplification, rather you would need this, let you are counting from 1 to 500 very fast that you finish the count in 100 seconds, now what is the probability that someone heard you saying "333"
I could stay silent and someone surely was going to explain the misunderstanding to you, because the subject discussed here is so obvious for many.

your previous statement worries me about your ability to calculate
Never worry about my calculation ability, I have really beaten my teachers many times, anyway any way can criticize my calculation and provide one better if they could!

Never worry about my calculation ability
now I'm even more worried... you're too cocky for your own good
I have really beaten my teachers many times, anyway any way can criticize my calculation and provide one better if they could!
This is irrelevant, you made a big deal out of 4 little numbers... i don't care how smart you think you are.
And if you're as smart as you say are you why are you wasting your time bragging about it ? I'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out

your previous statement worries me about your ability to calculate
Never worry about my calculation ability, I have really beaten my teachers many times, anyway any way can criticize my calculation and provide one better if they could!
How about your proof reading? j/k :)

I'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out
I really know why I do everything I do, determining causes and reasons is why I am, is what I for!

How about your proof reading? j/k :)
What do you mean, do you have any objections about my calculation?

I'd think you'd be smart enough to figure that out
I really know why I do everything I do, determining causes and reasons is why I am, is what I for!
(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg154/b00yaka/facepalm.gif)

M,
Here is what you are asking for:
"1111" has other 9 equivalent combinations, they are:(2222, 3333, 4444, ......, 9999) all equiprobable
While "1112" has much more equivalent combinations:(1113, 1114, ......, 1119, 2221, 2223, ......, 2229, ......, 9998) all equiprobable too
I think this is where you making an error, M. There aren't more equivalent combinations of 1112.
On the other hand, I believe you're correct in saying that 1111 is somehow different to a number such as 3071. They certainly look different to me. So how are they different?
To make it clear, let me first reduce the number of digits in your example, so it reads:
"111" has other 9 equivalent combinations, they are:(222, 333, 444, ......, 999) all equiprobable
While "112" has much more equivalent combinations:(113, 114, ......, 119, 221, 223, ......, 229, ......, 998) all equiprobable too
OK? The sense remains the same.
Now, let's clarify the algorithm used to generate the numbers in your first series:
1. For the first digit, select any number from 0 to 9.
2. For the second digit, add 0 to the first digit.
3. For the the third digit, add 0 to the first digit.
(For short, let's name this algorithm Add 0, Add 0).
As you say, that generates 10 numbers, 000, 111, 222, etc.
Obviously, we need a hundred of these algorithms to generate all 1000 numbers.
Your next series starts 112, which uses algorithm Add 0 Add 1.
That generates 112, 223, 334 etc... (ten numbers only, just as in the first series).
It doesn't generate, as you claim, 221, or 229, or 998, so those are not equivalent combinations  they are generated by Add 0 Add 9, Add 0 Add 7 and Add 0 Add 9 respectively.
So the question remains, why does 111 seem different to 496, if they're both equally probable?
Well, if the structure of the algorithm is Add x, Add y, any algorithm that has a value of zero for x or y immediate becomes noticeable to our patternsensitive perception, because it makes a pair with the first digit.
eg 484 661 585  we see the pattern immediately.
Similarly, any algorithm in which x=y also becomes noticeable for the same reason, that it creates a pair. 388 611
If x doesn't equal y, the pattern doesn't stand out (though it's still there). 493 217
(Now I'm halfway through this, I've just realized what M was trying to say in his quote above  but I'll plough on anyway).
But, of the 100 available algorithms, one stands out in our perception because it forms not just a pair, but a triple, and triples are more noticeable than pairs. Add 0 Add 0 is special for this reason, and the numbers that it generates stick out like a sore thumb.
Likewise, Add 1, Add 2 sticks out, as it generates the familiar 123 etc.
So M was throwing 229 and 221 into the same category, in the sense that they both contain a pair, and pairs are more common than triples.
Gnu.

Edit: And how scary is it that this post is my 100th ?!?!?!
About as scary as a black cat crossing in front of me, walking under a ladder, breaking a mirror, or opening an umbrella indoors. ;)
*Cue spooky music.
Actually, many people find Benford's law spooky and unbelievable... Nevertheless, it's true.

I think this is where you making an error, M. There aren't more equivalent combinations of 1112.
They are, and the algorithm analyzing is not necessary to find out why, the first algorithm is right, and that is actually what I meant, but the second algorithm isn't what I meant
1112 has many equivalents that satisfy having three identical digits with the forth different, that is it,
"1112", "1113", "6665" and "9998" all share the same degree of being "normal or usual" So, they imply the same impression on us when encountered, while, "0000", "1111", "2222", "3333", ......, "9999" also share the same degree of being "normal or usual" so they also imply the same impression on us when encountered, but they differs in the degree they sound usual to us, four identical digits is something happening only ten times in the range from zero to 10000, Do you agree on that?

can we lock this thread ? this circular logic isn't going anywhere

Sigh. I'll try to simplify this for you, M.
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud. What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
I didn't need that simplification, rather you would need this, let you are counting from 1 to 500 very fast that you finish the count in 100 seconds, now what is the probability that someone heard you saying "333"
I could stay silent and someone surely was going to explain the misunderstanding to you, because the subject discussed here is so obvious for many.
My situation is more analogous to the postcount situation. Yours is not. I'm not going to go forward until you demonstrate that you understand my question first. You have demonstrated a poor grasp of statistics in the past, so I have no reason to assume that you understand my question and its correct answer.

Sigh. I'll try to simplify this for you, M.
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud. What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
Hee. Reminds me of that one scene from The Man With Two Brains.
You... You...! You cooked her nines!

My situation is more analogous to the postcount situation.
Not if you understand the subject well.
I'm not going to go forward until you demonstrate that you understand my question first.
Fine, yes I understand your question and the answer is yes.

Now, simply because you happen to look at it while it hit 1111 is irrelevant, it doesn't get special meaning simply because YOU happen to see it.
What I am talking about here, is what is the probability that I could randomly have a look at the number during the period of time it was standing at "1111" it doesn't equal the probability of seeing "1112" at all
try to imagine it with a much extreme case, consider this one : "123456789" is it just a number, is it equiprobable to any other number, if your answer is yes, then I can't help you any better.
In all seriousness, I want to tell you that maybe you should seek some psychological counselling (I'm NOT kidding about this). I mention this especially because you say you were fired from your teaching job for being smarter than your bosses.
You do NOT understand applied probability and statistics; and the fact that you think you dothe fact that you seem to believe you have a "special" understandingsuggests you're at least somewhat delusional.
1) The probability that the current number of a counting series IS that number is 1
2) The probability of you noticing any particular number in a counting sequence is a function of the rate at which the numbers in the sequence progress, and the frequency of your observation of the sequence.
3) The probability of you noticing a number that "amuses you" in a counting sequence is ZERO if there are no numbers in the sequence that you find amusing, and otherwise is a function based on the function as described in item 2, with the additional component of the frequency of numbers in the sequence that you will find amusing.
Beyond that, the number of posts a poster had made has no special existential quality apart from a count of the number of posts the poster has made.

(http://atheistthinktank.net/HAL/threadbombs/3dchess.jpg)

My situation is more analogous to the postcount situation.
Not if you understand the subject well.
Mmhmmmm...says you, without any reasoning to support what you say. But let's see how you answer my question  which for the record, was this:
Let's say you are counting to 10, out loud. What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
I'm not going to go forward until you demonstrate that you understand my question first.
Fine, yes I understand your question and the answer is yes.
Do you consider "yes" to be a coherent answer to the question I asked, as bolded above? Because you have just demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what the question even was, let alone what its answer is.

In all seriousness, I want to tell you that maybe you should seek some psychological counselling (I'm NOT kidding about this).
Thanks, I appreciate it, but actually understanding what exactly the delusions of grandeur is, and what causes it, prevent me really from being disillusioned.
2) The probability of you noticing any particular number in a counting sequence is a function of the rate at which the numbers in the sequence progress, and the frequency of your observation of the sequence.
agreed, and mentioned previously.
Beyond that, the number of posts a poster had made has no special existential quality apart from a count of the number of posts the poster has made.
let's see what is special about digits combination like this one: (77777)
what is special about it, that such combination appears only ten times in the whole integer range from 0 to 100000, isn't that so special?
but what special about this one:(123456789), for your surprise, it appears only once within the range from 0 to 1000000000 making it so special.

Do you consider "yes" to be a coherent answer to the question I asked, as bolded above?
Oh, let me see, oh still the answer is yes ;D

Master, if you keep this up you'll reach 1111 posts, and we'll all get to see it  but wish we hadn't. What are the odds of that?

Do you consider "yes" to be a coherent answer to the question I asked, as bolded above?
Oh, let me see, oh still the answer is yes ;D
It's not a yesorno question. Reported for trolling.

It's not a yesorno question. Reported for trolling.
Is it just a nice way to escape?

You're stonewalling and avoiding actually answering the question in any meaningful way by playing around and posting nonanswers. That's not honest, and it's not within the forum rules.
If you refuse to answer a question for some reason, then state the reason openly and declare your refusal to answer the question for that reason. That's what I did with yours.

You're stonewalling and avoiding actually answering the question in any meaningful way by playing around and posting nonanswers. That's not honest, and it's not within the forum rules.
If you refuse to answer a question for some reason, then state the reason openly and declare your refusal to answer the question for that reason. That's what I did with yours.
is this the question:What is the probability that you will say "9" in the course of doing so?
the answer is "1"

In all seriousness, I want to tell you that maybe you should seek some psychological counselling (I'm NOT kidding about this).
let's see what is special about digits combination like this one: (77777)
what is special about it, that such combination appears only ten times in the whole integer range from 0 to 100000, isn't that so special?
but what special about this one:(123456789), for your surprise, it appears only once within the range from 0 to 1000000000 making it so special.
It's just such stuff which elicits my (heartfelt) recommendation for counseling. You mention a 9 digit number and tell us that there's only one like it among all 9 digit numbersand....uh....you see that as a "special insight?" Each and every 9 digit number is unique among all 9 digit numbers. Candidly (I'm definitely NOT trying to be mean or make you feel bad), that sort of thinking is typical of a person in the manic phase of bipolar disorder.
On his way to visit the sick mathematician Srinivasa Ramnaujan, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramanujan) the mathematician GH Hardy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._H._Hardy) rode in public cab number 1729. Hardy remarked that the number "1729" was rather uninteresting, whereupon Ramanujan immediately informed him that it was in fact an interesting number, being the smallest number that that can be represented as the sum of two cubes in two different ways (1^3 + 12^3 and 9^3 + 10^3).
In the two examples of "interesting numbers" given here can be seen the difference between delusion/insanity vs genius.

Thank you. You should have done that initially, instead of trying to play stupid games (for whatever reason).
The probability that Gnu would hit post 1111, was "1". That is analogous to countingup.
Now, the probability that you would see his post at the time, is a function like what GetMeThere described just a short while ago.
Gnu had that postcount for 25 minutes. That's plenty of time for you to see the number, given that you were online. Big deal.

Another miracle caught via clipboard! 333  what are the chances?
Name: Master
Posts: 333 (2.379 per day)

Each and every 9 digit number is unique among all 9 digit numbers.
A very simple question, please try to be honest to answer, if you go to receive your ID card, and found that its serial number was "555555555555", will you simply say, it is very normal, nothing special about this number?

A very simple question, please try to be honest to answer, if you go to receive your ID card, and found that its serial number was "555555555555", will you simply say, it is very normal, nothing special about this number?
Are you being serious?
I certainly wouldn't expect it to happen, but I wouldn't look in the sky and think a magical being guided me to that ID card.
Master, are you a superstitious person? Do you believe in good luck and bad luck? Like breaking a mirror?

Gnu had that postcount for 25 minutes. That's plenty of time for you to see the number, given that you were online. Big deal.
Agreed, I have established myself that the incident is normal, and if one could collect all information necessary and all determinant factors involved, then the result of the probability calculation would be exactly 1.
I am just definding against the claim that the number "1111" has nothing special.

I certainly wouldn't expect it to happen, but I wouldn't look in the sky and think a magical being guided me to that ID card.
Master, are you a superstitious person? Do you believe in good luck and bad luck? Like breaking a mirror?
Not at all, I know that what we call luck and chance are totally determined through certain causers, I am just defining against the claim that the number "1111" has nothing special about it, why would the "5555..." be special while "1111" isn't? that is it, "1111" is special in a much less way than "5555555555555555" that is it.

Each and every 9 digit number is unique among all 9 digit numbers.
A very simple question, please try to be honest to answer, if you go to receive your ID card, and found that its serial number was "555555555555", will you simply say, it is very normal, nothing special about this number?
It's a number that has a definable feature.
The number 387555788 also has a definable feature:
it consists of 6 odd digits and 3 even;
it has another: all it's even digits are "8";
it has another: all it's even digits are the smallest cube that doesn't also equal its cube root
it has another: all it's odd digits are prime numbers;
it has another: it's center 5 digits are palindromic
...and I could go on!
divided into triplets of digits, the triplets are in ascending order
divided into quadruplets evenly (ignoring the center digit), the quadruplets are in ascending order
it has an ODD number of even digits, and an EVEN number of odd digits
oooh!! It's so SPECIAL! (IMAGINE that I entered it by randomly tapping digits, and then found so many "features"...what are the odds of THAT!!!!!)
Get help.

(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z156/donutmikey/Funny/facepalm_implied.jpg)

Gnu had that postcount for 25 minutes. That's plenty of time for you to see the number, given that you were online. Big deal.
Agreed, I have established myself that the incident is normal, and if one could collect all information necessary and all determinant factors involved, then the result of the probability calculation would be exactly 1.
I am just definding against the claim that the number "1111" has nothing special.
Then why bring it up? Your actions disagree with your words.

Then why bring it up? Your actions disagree with your words.
I brought it up to end up with the fact that almost all what appear to be a "miracle" is actually not and easily understood on scientific bases.

Another miracle caught via clipboard! 333  what are the chances?
Name: Master
Posts: 333 (2.379 per day)
Hahahah, good one, still "1111" is ten times less likely than "333"

Then why bring it up? Your actions disagree with your words.
I brought it up to end up with the fact that almost all what appear to be a "miracle" is actually not and easily understood on scientific bases (religious basis).
Fixed

Then why bring it up? Your actions disagree with your words.
I brought it up to end up with the fact that almost all what appear to be a "miracle" is actually not and easily understood on scientific bases.
WHat's not to understand here?
There is nothing special or unique about that number, or any number. May it be moderately surprising to see it?Sure, but so what? It's just a number, it's only surprising or interesting to us because we think "oh look all the same digit" or whatever other pattern. But the "interest" of these numbers is purely within your mind. Math or the universe has no bias toward these numbers.

It's a number that has a definable feature.
The number 387555788 also has a definable feature:
it consists of 6 odd digits and 3 even;
You were either stupid or dishonest with yourself, I think you aren't that stupid though
very fine anyway, there are numbers that has definable features, now what is special about one number having much more definable features, major\basic definable features?
what is the difference between one number with major definable features and another with few small definable features? see?

Another miracle caught via clipboard! 333  what are the chances?
Name: Master
Posts: 333 (2.379 per day)
Hahahah, good one, still "1111" is ten times less likely than "333"
Again you're wrong: The occurrence of each is equal: They each occur ONCE in the series of natural numbers.
OR, if you're discussing the occurrence of xdigit numbers that contain all the same digit, they are the same: there are 9 3digit numbers made up of the same digit, and there are 9 4digit numbers made up of the same digit.
Furthermore, if you count to any number, n, greater than 10,000, the frequency of 3digit numbers all of the same digit is equal to the frequency of 4digit numbers all of the same digit: in each case it is 9/n

It's a number that has a definable feature.
The number 387555788 also has a definable feature:
it consists of 6 odd digits and 3 even;
You were either stupid or dishonest with yourself, I think you aren't that stupid though
very fine anyway, there are numbers that has definable features, now what is special about one number having much more definable features, major\basic definable features?
what is the difference between one number with major definable features and another with few small definable features? see?
Are you discussing here your "taste" in numerical features? If so that's subjective, and definitely NOT relevant to a discussion of numbers.

Are you discussing here your "taste" in numerical features? If so that's subjective, and definitely NOT relevant to a discussion of numbers.
Not my taste, it is a very well definable taste of any human, and it is totally based on our sense of number and logic.
EDIT: Sorry, I am going to sleep people it is 5:18 am here :o
continue tomorrow.

Are you discussing here your "taste" in numerical features? If so that's subjective, and definitely NOT relevant to a discussion of numbers.
Not my taste, it is a very well definable taste of any human, and it is totally based on our sense of number and logic.
EDIT: Sorry, I am going to sleep people it is 5:18 am here :o
continue tomorrow.
Here's to hoping that some sleep will bring you back to your senses....

what is the difference between one number with major definable features and another with few small definable features? see?
someone fell out of the subjectivity tree and hit every single branch on the way down.

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/12335578991071.jpg)
It's fail at a magnitude of 1,111!

(http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg278/se7enthsignpsn/failboat.jpg)

No, 666 has a much lower normal probability to occur than 1111, so do 1000.
I disagree. It is possible to get 666 posts without ever reaching 1111, but not vice versa.

No, 666 has a much lower normal probability to occur than 1111, so do 1000.
I disagree. It is possible to get 666 posts without ever reaching 1111, but not vice versa.
Where is the disagreement? However, "1111" isn't less likely to happen just because the frequancy of its appearence with its equivalents is ten time less than the frequency of "666", that is it.

No, 666 has a much lower normal probability to occur than 1111, so do 1000.
I disagree. It is possible to get 666 posts without ever reaching 1111, but not vice versa.
Where is the disagreement? However, "1111" isn't less likely to happen just because the frequancy of its appearence with its equivalents is ten time less than the frequency of "666", that is it.
Bold = mine. If you get the number 1111, you are guaranteed to have gotten then number 666 at least once: there is a pattern which is followed on this site. You're also saying, apparently, than 1111 appears 1/10 as many times as 666 in the natural progression of numbers. What you MEAN to say, I assume, is that any number with three repeating digits (100x+10x+x) is more likely to occur than any number with 4 repeating digits (1000x+100x+10x+x) Which in the sense that Astreja mentioned makes total sense (because you can get 666 and not get 1111, but not the other way around). However, that's the only sense that's being made here.
What you've said is that it is more likely to get the number sequence 'xxx' in a set of all integers between 1 and 10,000 than it is to get 'yyyy' in a set of all integers between 1 and 10,000. Which is only true if you allow for variations of the codes to be counted among them, i.e. 1666 or 2221 (zxxx or xxxz), which simply makes it obvious and rigs it to show a certain outcome. 1111, 2222, etc. would all be included in the count of the number of integers with 3 repeating digits. In fact, depending on how you wanted to argue it, they would be counted twice, with both the triple digit sequence at the beginning and the end of the number counted. They could serve as both xxxz and zxxx. So in essence, by doing this, you are essentially stating that you're more likely to have a number with at least 3 digits than you are to have a number with at least 4 digits.
I'll say that again, in boldunderlineitalics so you can understand this.
You're saying that it's more probable to get a number with at least 3 digits than it is to get a number with at least 4 digits.
This thread now = epic fail.

You're saying that it's more probable to get a number with at least 3 digits than it is to get a number with at least 4 digits.
Not exactly, I simply say that "yyy" three identical digits number has a low frequency of occurrence, since such number appears only ten times within the the range from 0 to 1000, while "yyyy" a four identical digits number has an even less frequency, since it appears only ten times within the range from 0 to 10,000.

This thread now = epic fail.
Now?
I'm thinking it started that way.

This thread now = epic fail.
Now?
I'm thinking it started that way.
Many people here, you and others, just keep on saying things irrelevant to the subject discussed, Please people, don't let your disillusions combined with your ignorance make you sound like idiots.

This thread now = epic fail.
Now?
I'm thinking it started that way.
Many people here, you and others, just keep on saying things irrelevant to the subject discussed, Please people, don't let your disillusions combined with your ignorance make you sound like idiots.
Are we talking about the same OP where the poster wonders if Gnu making 1111 posts is a miracle?

Are we talking about the same OP where the poster wonders if Gnu making 1111 posts is a miracle?
I didn't wonder if it was a miracle, it was just to provoke people to think about the situation, i mainly wondered if someone could calculate its normal probability!

Are we talking about the same OP where the poster wonders if Gnu making 1111 posts is a miracle?
I didn't wonder if it was a miracle, it was just to provoke people to think about the situation, i mainly wondered if someone could calculate its normal probability!
as i have said twice before, there are too many variables to calculate it

as i have said twice before, there are too many variables to calculate it
That is relatively true, it depend completely on the degree of preciation\accuracy\reliability desired for the calculation, the higher the degree of preciation desired, the more variables must be considered.

"Normal probability" is no mathematical/ statistical term in English. It isn't at all clear what you mean by its use. The simples interpretation would be: The probability that an n digit number consists of n identical digits.
Assuming that the count starts at '1'  thus excluding series of n zeros  the probability would be 9/99 (9.090909...%) for 2 digit numbers, 9/999 (0.9009009%) for 3 digit numbers, 9/9999 (0.090009%) for four digit numbers and so on.
Of course such a calculation has nothing to do with the posting situation on the forum. It is just the general probability of getting a series of n identical digits for randomly combined ndigit numbers.
Is that what you were getting at?

You're saying that it's more probable to get a number with at least 3 digits than it is to get a number with at least 4 digits.
Not exactly, I simply say that "yyy" three identical digits number has a low frequency of occurrence, since such number appears only ten times within the the range from 0 to 1000, while "yyyy" a four identical digits number has an even less frequency, since it appears only ten times within the range from 0 to 10,000.
Then you're dealing with two different sets of numbers and the probability can't be directly compared. It's uneven. The series 'xxx' (not zxxx or xxxz) appears exactly 9 times between 1 and 1000, but it also appears only 9 times between 1 and 10,000 which is exactly the same probability as the series 'yyyy' (not 'xyyyy' or 'yyyyx'). You can't make a statement and then make another one under different qualifications and compare them as if everything is equal: That's simply bad math.

Emergence, that's a far more concise explanation of what I was trying to explain a couple of pages ago:
On the other hand, I believe you're correct in saying that 1111 is somehow different to a number such as 3071. They certainly look different to me. So how are they different?
Many people have pointed out that a randomnumber generating machine, set to choose a fourdigit number, is just as likely to select 1111 as 3071, so in that sense the numbers are equivalent in probability terms.
But, the RNGM would not be as likely to select a number of the form nnnn as a number not of that form. Numbers of that form are rarer and therefore less likely to be selected, and our perceptual systems recognize that fact immediately.
Gnu.

Sorry Gnu. I must have missed your post. Ok, i didn't read the whole thread to be honest. I just was bored and participating in Master's thread seemed like a possible fount of endless amusement. ;)

I'm sorry, Emergence, I wasn't complaining about your intervention at all, just commenting that it did better than I did in answering for example Zankuu, when he said:
I find nothing weird about 1111 or any other number for that matter.
A number like 1111 is weird because it's a rare form, and it's more noticeable for that reason.

Many people have pointed out that a randomnumber generating machine, set to choose a fourdigit number, is just as likely to select 1111 as 3071, so in that sense the numbers are equivalent in probability terms.
But, the RNGM would not be as likely to select a number of the form nnnn as a number not of that form. Numbers of that form are rarer and therefore less likely to be selected, and our perceptual systems recognize that fact immediately.
perfectly agreed
Of course such a calculation has nothing to do with the posting situation on the forum. It is just the general probability of getting a series of n identical digits for randomly combined ndigit numbers.
Imagine a more extreme case and be honest with yourself, you are receiving your ID card, and you find out that its serial number is "555555555555555555555"
Then you're dealing with two different sets of numbers and the probability can't be directly compared.
Fine, since post counts within 1 to 999 are much more common than post counts ranging from 1111 to 9999, then the four digit identical digits combination is much more rare.
Agreed?
Edit: I am just getting to the above point because no body seem to understand the probability calculation I established previously, I think it needs more fine defining work that I can't accomplish, hoped you didn't need it.

I'm sorry, Emergence, I wasn't complaining about your intervention at all, just commenting that it did better than I did in answering for example Zankuu, when he said:
I find nothing weird about 1111 or any other number for that matter.
A number like 1111 is weird because it's a rare form, and it's more noticeable for that reason.
I still can't find anything wierd about '1111' pertaining to your post count. I went out on a limb and assumed you wouldn't jump from 1110 to 1112. *scratches head* I guess if I rolled one die several times in a row and it landed on '3' each time, I would say to myself, "Hey, look at that, what are the odds?" But the die has no idea what it had rolled on, so the liklihood of it happening again would be just as likely as rolling any other number on the die. That's what I had thought... I could be completely wrong... anyone?
:?

I still can't find anything wierd about '1111' pertaining to your post count. I went out on a limb and assumed you wouldn't jump from 1110 to 1112. *scratches head* I guess if I rolled one die several times in a row and it landed on '3' each time, I would say to myself, "Hey, look at that, what are the odds?" But the die has no idea what it had rolled on, so the liklihood of it happening again would be just as likely as rolling any other number on the die. That's what I had thought... I could be completely wrong... anyone?
:?
Yeah, you've got it. The difference is that the site and the post count does have a memory. It is very much dependent on the posts that came before it. It's like dropping coins in a piggy bank. The bank starts empty and you drop 10 coins into it. If you drop one more coin in there (assuming there's no hole in the bank, and the coins have no real route for escape), the odds that you will then have 11 coins in there is so close to one that no one ever thinks about it any other way. With a RNG, getting the sequence 'yyyy' versus getting any other sequence (wxyz, where at least variable has a different value than the other 3) is unlikely. But if you're counting your way up then the only thing stopping you from getting to 1111 would be to end the count before you get there. So the only thing oddswise you'd have to bring into play are things that would happen either in Gnu's life or with the internet that might stop him from posting, which would require not only an invasive amount of knowledge but such complex calculations that no human alive could figure it out to any degree of certainty.
tl;dr? Yeah you're right, but the post count does have a memory.

I still can't find anything wierd about '1111' pertaining to your post count
Agreed, Zankuu, it's entirely unremarkable that everybody's postcount eventually goes past all kinds of 'interesting' numbers. I was trying to point why 1111 is particularly interesting, that's all. In terms of its form, it's rare, therefore it's noticeable.
Though to be honest, I'm beginning to wish that M hadn't noticed it. ;)

So the only thing oddswise you'd have to bring into play are things that would happen either in Gnu's life or with the internet that might stop him from posting, which would require not only an invasive amount of knowledge but such complex calculations that no human alive could figure it out to any degree of certainty.
Except me, Max. ;)

Edit: I am just getting to the above point because no body seem to understand the probability calculation I established previously, I think it needs more fine defining work that I can't accomplish, hoped you didn't need it.
Yah.. you know.. it needs.. like.. an actual reason for doing so instead of your mindless pleading.

I still can't find anything wierd about '1111' pertaining to your post count.
Isn't it you who wrote this:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php?topic=9566.msg215019#msg215019
"555555555555555" is just a more extreme case than "1111", both do infrequently show up.

Of course such a calculation has nothing to do with the posting situation on the forum. It is just the general probability of getting a series of n identical digits for randomly combined ndigit numbers.
Imagine a more extreme case and be honest with yourself, you are receiving your ID card, and you find out that its serial number is "555555555555555555555"
ID cards are different from forum posts, because every citizen get issued only one. And 555,555,555,555,555,555,555 is different from 1,111 by multiple orders of magnitude obviously. So there is nothing to compare between noticing a member with 1111 forum posts and an ID card # with 21 consecutive identical digits.
As for honesty: Would i be immensity surprised if i got 555,555,555,555,555,555,555? Sure. Would i think that this is a notable occurrence? Yes. And not only because my countries ID cards have only 10 digit numbers. :D

How about this: at the time that I read through this thread Gnu had 1555 posts and Master had 555. What are the odds that the last three numbers of two individual posters would be identical? This must be a conspiracy or a sine or perhaps it's a tangent. Pythagoras must be turning in his grave.

Hehheh. I was just skipping through this thread, wondering why it was in the Pit (and being reminded how deeply weird it was), and I spotted Master's postcount. Didn't spot that mine was exactly a thousand higher.
It's a miracle, I tell you.
(But I've spoilt it now. Sorry).

As an online poker player I have seen many of such calculations and they are all wrong and a logical fallacy. For example, if you get dealt 20 random hands, the probability to get these hands is 1/ (52^20)(51^20). The chance to get dealt 40 aces in 20 hands is much bigger.
I think this TS is acting very childish by insisting how unique 1111 is and it is correctly pointed out that any number between 0 and x is equally likely to occur in a series of numbers ranging from 0 to x and it's probability is 1. The realisation that a specific type of numbers is more easily to recognise does not bear any value.
And this is childish, but since you state that you're kicked out of school for outsmarting your teachers and that your maths and logic is infallible:
Fine people, I am sure that there are people out there who could make the calculation, but I won't wait, I will make it for you and show the point behind the topic:
there are four places for integers in this case, each place can only take an integer value from 0 to 9
the probability that the first takes exactly "1" is 1/10, the probability for the second place taking exactly 1 is also 1/10, the same for the third and fourth places
Now what is the probability that each place take "1" at the same time giving "1111"?
since the value of each place is independent on the other, then the probability of "1111" is (1/10)^4 = 1/10000
but we would have the same impression(the same degree of being normal\usual) if the number was "2222" or "3333", i.e all are equivalent, then the probability is nine times the last result, i.e 9/10000(some would ask why not 10/10000, the answer is that "0000" would never appear, so we have 9 equivalent combinations for "1111" instead of 10)
that is still too small probability, how could it happen, oh, have we considered the number of trials out of which it happened once? here is the point, many things appear to be weird just because we missestimate the actual number of trials, an issue totally related to human memory and recalling system, I didn't take in consideration how often I look at members posts counter, nor how many active members, a man worshiping a caw, will think that the caw often answers his prayers, because when he recalls he doesn't recall the unanswered prayers,(never heard someone saying:"I once prayed and wasn't answered"), that is it, in the same manner one can show that almost everything that people think to be a "miracle" is just the reflection of normal probability of occurrence.
This calculation is wrong. Any four digit number starting with 0 is a three digit number, e.g. 0239=239. The probability to get a 4 digit number consisting of 4 equal digits is 1/1000 using your mathematical and logical method. Of course the probability to get such a number in a series of 10000 numbers remains 9/10000.