Testing random

[Ian Kelly]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> <PointedEars at web.de> wrote:
>>> The greater the multiplier, the lower the chance that any element will
>>> have no hits.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>>> [ex falso quodlibet]
>
> Huh. Do you want to explain how, mathematically, I am wrong, or do you
> want to join the RUE in my ignore list?

My best speculation is that he's either objecting to the generality of
your statement (it's false if the probability of some element
occurring is zero or eventually degrades to zero), or misreading the
word "multiplier" to the conclusion that the value of each element is
being multiplied rather than the number of trials. Or trolling; I
suppose that's always an option too.