Search Voat (via searchvoat.co)

Submission Info

Posted by: Some_Guy_from_RI

Posting time: 5 months ago on

Last edit time: never edited.

Archived on: 8/14/2018 10:00:00 AM

Traffic stats

Views: **936**

Score

SCP: **90**

**92** upvotes, **2** downvotes (**98%** upvoted it)

- system [O]

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

## Sort: Top

[–] GoofyGrape 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago

I was expecting somebody doing something stupid.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 4 points 5 points (+5|-1) ago

[–] Pulverizor 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago

Here's one.

[–] truthwoke33 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

WORLD STAR NIGGA! WORLD STAR NIGGA! OH SHIET NIGGA!

records in vertical[–] KnightFalcon 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago

<nerd mode>

wouldn't this just be the binomial distribution? The bell curve would be the Gaussian, which uses exp(-x^2). I think this is the binomial, not the Gaussian, and therefore is not the bell curve. But yes, in the limit the binomial distribution approximates the Gaussian, so in the limit, the statement would be correct.

</nerd mode>

[–] buncha_cunts 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)

Out of chaos, comes order. The balls go to a random location but since there's so many, you get a reliable curve like that.

According to the video this is from, the larger the sample set is in a binomial distribution, the closer you get to a normal distribution. In this case there are 3,000 little metal balls, and each number in the hexagons represents the number of paths a ball can take to get to that location. The fibonacci sequence gets involved when you draw diagonals from every number on the left and add up the numbers that diagonal crosses through.

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=UCmPmkHqHXk

[–] KnightFalcon 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

"the larger the sample set is in a binomial distribution, the closer you get to a normal distribution"

exactly. That's why I said it's not the bell curve, but it approximates it in the limit.

[–] downvotesattractor 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

No, this is going to be a Gaussian distribution. You are correct that at each step, the probability of outcomes is a binomial distribution. However, this experiment adds up multiple outcomes of binomial distributions.

That makes this a demonstration of the fantastic “Central Limit Theorem” which basically says that irrespective of the original probability distribution (binomial in this case), when you sum up the results of lots of experiments, the sums will form a gaussian curve.

[–] KnightFalcon 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

well, that's why I said "in the limit". It's NOT a Gaussian EXCEPT in the limit.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

[–] KnightFalcon 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

yepp, as I said, the binomial distribution approaches the Gaussian in the limit.

[–] Greasy 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

I gotta say, that GIF was

notwhat I was expecting from a link with that title on this website.[–] JoeKerr 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

yeah but i am an outlier...i am special -everybody

[–] SpeshulSnowflaek 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

Yea but 0.3% of them are actually right

[–] The_Exodite 0 points 1 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago

That's actually brilliant. Simplicity of complex concepts, combined with scientific repeatability.

[–] Deplorablepoetry 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

Plinko intensification

[–] kjell 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

More of a path of least resistance.

[–] hankylanky 3 points -3 points 0 points (+0|-3) ago

Only the idiots on Voat could need something to illustrate what a bell curve illustrates all by itself. You guys really are those few little balls on the left.

[–] truthwoke33 0 points 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago

Yeah applied sciences are for dummies!