Every 7 kittens born, 6 are normal size and 1 special size!

[jwenting Resident]

(11-01-2014 08:20 AM)Tad Carlucci Wrote:  Proof of a 'pattern' is sufficient (but not necessary) to disprove 'random'

There is provably NO pattern to size, which is necessary (but not sufficient) to prove randomness.

Yes, I can prove there is no pattern. The proof requires an understanding of number theory, and information theory, which I doubt many here have and even fewer would like to plough through.

the only way to prove there's no pattern is to have an infinite number of data points.
Anything less and there could be a pattern that's so big you've not found it yet.

And if you find a pattern, unless you can prove that that pattern repeats reliably and infinitely it might still be a random factor.
E.g. coin flips.
If you flip a coin it might fall tails 2 times, heads 2 times, 10 times in a row.
That doesn't mean there's a pattern programmed into the coin that causes it to always fall twice on one side and then twice on another. You just got hit by randomness.
If I flip that same coin again I likely get something completely different.

And number theory when combined with computer generated random numbers? Not very useful as there's always a non-random factor involved.
An RNG isn't, it's always pseudo-random. Usually in software a timestamp at millisecond precision is used as a seed of the algorithm, but there are other ways.

---

(11-01-2014 12:12 PM)Kayleigh McMillan Wrote:  I am positive it is random I've heard multiple of the owners and CSRs stating that.
I think there is a sort of sequence ofcourse when the server hands out an odd size just as with specials vendors; the rare can come to you after one try.
It must be so though, due to the sequences, some are extremely lucky while orhers aren't: random at it's best.

I doubt there's a programmed sequence. Of course if you generate enough kittens you'll find specific percentages of each, and over an interval they might seem to repeat at specific periods, but taken a large enough number of kittens (millions) you're going to find a random distribution of each size appearing with the totals matching the programmed percentages.
You might find a certain blip at times, coinciding with the RNG getting a fresh seed number, but that's it.

That's just how random number generators work.

[fabioazevedo Oh]

In logic programming the system would be as follows:

Number_Radom = (random pick between 1 and 35)

select case (Number_Radom)
case = 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,22,23,24,25,26,27,29,30,31,32,33,3​4
- Size_Cat = Normal
case = 7
- Size_Cat = Teacup
case = 14
- Size_Cat = Toy
case = 21
- Size_Cat = Petite
case = 28
- Size_Cat = Teacup
case = 35
- Size_Cat = MegaPuss
end select

Send to website chosen Size_Cat.


Some code looks like this, the inside of kittens, and this can choose random size.
I used 35 options to justify the 85% of cats with normal size.

[Tad Carlucci]

A couple thoughts:

--

The absence of 'blips' is sufficient to prove non-random. Put another way: if there is NEVER a breeder who can show every Mega box they produced came exclusively from pairings of mega-to-teacup, and no other, then we should look for some bias in the system. True randomness will produce extremely surprising results. [A run of 5,000 males and no females? OK, but it's still random.]

--

There's a lot of smoke being thrown that computer-generated randomness is not true randomness. The implication is that, since a pattern may arise, it will arise. This is NOT the case. Yes, modern pseudo-random generators are THEORETICALLY capable of producing a pattern. But we're not concerned with that. All we care about is, over the expected useful life of the generator, we have a reasonable expectation that no pattern will arise. Remember, we're not talking about all possible sequences, here. We're talking about meaningful sequences, actually being used, in an actual implementation.

So, who cares if there is a THEORETICAL chance, that, after producing a series of 100 trillion numbers, the series repeats? We're talking about starting at a given point in that cycle, extracting a few billion values, then stopping.

In PHP (not MySQL, since PHP is the programming language and MySQL is only the database engine) we have three possible ways.

rand() is no good. Given any series of three sequential outputs, we can always produce the fourth. The only reasons rand() is offered is legacy support and, given the same seed, it produces the same sequence so it's good for quick-and-dirty, repeatable tests.

mt_rand() is not only far faster than rand(), it's far better. With mt_rand() we can't do repeatable tests since it's seeded from the system entropy source (/dev/urandom on most Unix-like systems). Other than that, mt_rand() is a drop-in replacement for rand(). mt_rand() is good enough for general application use where we need sequences of only a few (say, a million or two) values.

openssl_random_pseudo_bytes() is available on PHP if OpenSSL is installed (which is virtually all virtual hosting systems). It *IS* intended AND vetted for cryptographic use.

--

But, of course, we also need to examine in-world randomness. That means llFrand() in LSL/Mono. llFrand() has issues. Many of them come from the scripter not knowing (or forgetting) that it does NOT use the full range. llFrand() only produces random values in 20-bit chunks, but many forget that as assume it can be extended to 32-bit integers and remain "random" over the extended range.

llFrand() uses Mono. The random generator in Mono (and on .NET) is the System.Random class. System.Random is similar to PHP rand() (it is seeded by hand), but more complex [falling between rand() and mt_rand()].

llFrand() is good enough for short runs (say a few thousand) but, if you're looking for millions, you're best off shipping the problem over to your PHP backend.

[Crepe Myrtle]

I agree that any sizes will be random. I have posted my numbers way back June of this year to show how frequently I get sizes other than "Normal" sizes by weekly. I did not include the number of "Normal" sizes. This time, I included it, but did not do it by weekly, but by the whole population.

One thing I can say, I can get my numbers accurately because I'm a hoarder of all my boxes so I can give a visual presentation of my cattery population. I don't put my sizes for sale at all so here are my numbers. Please remember, this is my population, my sample size, not yours. I am only giving a visual presentation how frequently I get sizes. As you can see below, I have a total of 2269 boxes. I did not include any collector kitties I bought. This is strictly what I got from pairing my kitties.



As you can see above, I have more chances of getting more "Teacup" sizes than "Megapuss" sizes. The percentage between "Bigger de Big", "Petite", "Toy", and "Teacup" are quite close. There are no differences.

The next image I am going to present one of my kitties, Reynard, which is a megapuss. Many assume that you could possibly get different sizes if you breed other sizes to another sizes and get non "Normal" sizes for the babies.



With Reynard, I was lucky enough to get 2 "Megapuss" sizes and 1 "Teacup". I never birthed these kitties so to do a proof of concept whether sizes pass to the babies or not, I cannot tell you. For one, I will not give a biased experiment. If I really want to do a proof of concept (POC) and give an accurate and exact sample size and detail numbers, which includes percentage, I will do so. I live and breathe statistics as it is part of my real life job and I am a programmer as well. I love numbers and data.

Hope the visual presentation helps you. Have a great day, everyone.

[Jiyulie Resident]

Wow...this is too complicated for a psychologist mind.
But I'd say that the random sample size (based on clinical trials) are not enough to proof the theory.
But then again, what do I understand about computer programming?

But nevertheless, thank you for the interesting information. This has become my favorite thread.

[Shamu077 Resident]

(11-03-2014 08:16 AM)Crepe Myrtle Wrote:  

You have the best data and sample size I have see from a breeder Crepe - what a lot of work and kibble money!

It really looks like the weights for the sizes are 91% for Normal, 2% for all the others, except the Mega at a 1% weighting.

And I wonder if when the Megas were first released the weights were 90% Normal, and 2% for all other sizes. There does seem to be fewer Megas around now than when they started, but then they were worth more to sell then.

Kittycats know the exact weights of course, but they never talk.

[Crepe Myrtle]

(11-04-2014 09:21 PM)Jiyulie Resident Wrote:  Wow...this is too complicated for a psychologist mind.
But I'd say that the random sample size (based on clinical trials) are not enough to proof the theory.
But then again, what do I understand about computer programming?

But nevertheless, thank you for the interesting information. This has become my favorite thread.

Whether you are using a sample or a population, you should be able to quantify it. However, if you are going to measure something and you already have a biased collection of data, you will basically have different results. I worked for a county hospital for 10 years and I have provided statistical reports for directors and board members. Depending on what are the clinical studies they were performing (pretty much smoking and diabetes), they always asked random sample, whether they wanted female only, children, or whatever they were requesting. After they performed those studies, I have given them reports they needed for their analysis.

The sample size I have provided were kitties that I have not birthed. It was easier to gather because it was readily available. However, I have not included any counts for the kitties that are live (breedable and permapetted), sent to menagerie, and have given away or sold at auction. There is a possibility that the weighting would be different so I might say give about +/- 0.05% because the sample size will increase or rather that will be my population since I started breeding on this avatar.

[Tad Carlucci]

When working with randomly sampled data, the idea is to select a sample size sufficiently large that the sampling error becomes low enough for your intended use.

I've seen some medical studies, where the study group was only 5 or 6 patients. At first glance, this seemed ridiculously low. But, on examining deeper, it was apparent this was sufficient for the intended use. The full dataset, in the most recent, was not 'all humans', but rather 'patients exhibiting' a relatively narrow set of symptoms. And the intended use of the study was to test whether a larger test was warranted. As it turned out, the results indicated nothing could be gained from the larger study, and the research moved on to another area.

'Intended use' is critical. We've seen, in this thread, some comments about how it's not 'true random' but a 'pseudo-random' function. Yes, that is correct. But what is the intended use? If you're talking about taking a series of random 0's and 1's and producing Gender, does it really matter that, after, say, 1,000,000,000,000,000 offspring, there is a CHANCE that a pattern will develop?

The question is NOT, "Is this truly random?"

The question is, "Given the limited data anyone is likely to see, does this appear random?"

In cryptography, we need a number of factors. Speed (who is going to wait an hour to read their email?) is one of them. Complexity, another. The goal is to produce a function with is sufficiently fast it can be used, but complex enough that it cannot be attacked in REASONABLE time. We often speak of the attack speed in 'years' .. as if one would set a single computer to the task and await the result. The reality, given the size of the Internet, however, is that it is quite possible to set a huge number of computers to the task. So, we see cryptographic systems, in use today, which, given current computing power, should take millions upon millions of millions of years, simply because we recognize that (1) it is EASY, now-a-days, to marshal millions of computers to a task, and (2) Moore's Law tells us computers tomorrow will be significantly faster than today.

["Moore's law" is the observation that, over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. The observation is named after Gordon E. Moore, co-founder of the Intel Corporation, who described the trend in his 1965 paper.] [As as aside, here, Moore's Law has been wrong for most of the past decade, computers today are NOT significantly faster than they were a decade ago. They just appear so because we're throwing more computers at the problem .. your new laptop is not "a" computer .. it's 4 or 6 of them .. so the box seems 6 times faster not because the computers are faster, but because you're using more computers. But recent research indicates that will soon end, and Moore's Law may become wrong to the other side .. computers a looking to become significantly faster, at a higher rate, assuming the research can be feasibly applied.]

But, we're not talking about millions of computers and millions upon millions of KittyCatS. We're talking about maybe 30,000 people, and somewhere around 6 or 7 million KittyCatS.

So, even though, yes, it's possible, over the course of the next couple millennia, the randomness of KittyCatS will break down and we MIGHT be able to prove a pattern, given the current conditions, and likely future and lifetime of the product, the results produced by even a weak pseudo-random number generator (such as the in-world llFrand() function or PHP mt_rand()) will pass most, if not all, tests we might apply in an attempt to prove "not random"

[fabioazevedo Oh]

I wrote a code similar to that used by the KC to pick random sizes for kittens.



1 - RANDOM SYSTEM SET TO NORMAL SIZE 85%

menor = 1 'define the smallest number
maior = 35 'define the greater number

for x=1 To 2000 'loop 2000 times
sorteado = Int((maior-menor+1)*Rnd+menor) 'random choice of numbers

SELECT Case sorteado 'Gets the number chosen and makes an analysis
case 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 ,11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34
Size_Normal = Size_Normal + 1 'adds +1 in the size normal
case 7
Size_Teacup = Size_Teacup + 1 'adds +1 in the size teacup
case 14
Size_Toy = Size_Toy + 1 'adds +1 in the size toy
case 21
Size_Petite = Size_Petite + 1 'adds +1 in the size petite
case 28
Size_BiggerdeBig = Size_BiggerdeBig + 1 'adds +1 in the size bigger de big
case 35
Size_MegaPuss = Size_MegaPuss + 1 'adds +1 in the size megapuss
end select

next 'loop


See The results of the 'random' system set to 85% normal size.

Size_Normal = 1722
Size_Teacup = 67
Size_Toy = 66
Size_Petite = 48
Size_BiggerdeBig = 49
Size_MegaPuss = 48
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 1697
Size_Teacup = 62
Size_Toy = 66
Size_Petite = 59
Size_BiggerdeBig = 57
Size_MegaPuss = 59
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 1693
Size_Teacup = 67
Size_Toy = 62
Size_Petite = 64
Size_BiggerdeBig = 64
Size_MegaPuss = 50
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 1702
Size_Teacup = 65
Size_Toy = 57
Size_Petite = 70
Size_BiggerdeBig = 54
Size_MegaPuss = 52
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 1727
Size_Teacup = 55
Size_Toy = 53
Size_Petite = 48
Size_BiggerdeBig = 62
Size_MegaPuss = 55
Total = 2000


We can assert that:
a) the system KC is random
b) the system KC has a 85% adjustment to the normal size





2- RANDOM SYSTEM SETTINGS WITHOUT

menor = 1 'define the smallest number
maior = 6 'define the greater number

for x=1 To 2000 'loop 2000 times
sorteado = Int((maior-menor+1)*Rnd+menor) 'random choice of numbers

SELECT Case sorteado 'Gets the number chosen and makes an analysis
case 1
Size_Normal = Size_Normal + 1 'adds +1 in the size normal
case 2
Size_Teacup = Size_Teacup + 1 'adds +1 in the size teacup
case 3
Size_Toy = Size_Toy + 1 'adds +1 in the size toy
case 4
Size_Petite = Size_Petite + 1 'adds +1 in the size petite
case 5
Size_BiggerdeBig = Size_BiggerdeBig + 1 'adds +1 in the size bigger de big
case 6
Size_MegaPuss = Size_MegaPuss + 1 'adds +1 in the size megapuss
end select

next 'loop



Now let's see the results of the 'random' system, with only the options of sizes without adjustment of 85%.

Size_Normal = 311
Size_Teacup = 340
Size_Toy = 352
Size_Petite = 300
Size_BiggerdeBig = 335
Size_MegaPuss = 362
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 338
Size_Teacup = 353
Size_Toy = 317
Size_Petite = 343
Size_BiggerdeBig = 319
Size_MegaPuss = 330
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 376
Size_Teacup = 332
Size_Toy = 298
Size_Petite = 336
Size_BiggerdeBig = 339
Size_MegaPuss = 319
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 335
Size_Teacup = 344
Size_Toy = 339
Size_Petite = 308
Size_BiggerdeBig = 338
Size_MegaPuss = 336
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 334
Size_Teacup = 336
Size_Toy = 332
Size_Petite = 331
Size_BiggerdeBig = 337
Size_MegaPuss = 330
Total = 2000


Size_Normal = 363
Size_Teacup = 333
Size_Toy = 336
Size_Petite = 316
Size_BiggerdeBig = 320
Size_MegaPuss = 332
Total = 2000



We can assert that:
a) this is not the random system that uses KC

[Lostime Resident]

Mmmmm! The one thing I would like to know "IS". Do time play a roll "when a cats is born" say like your cat have a baby say 9pm "a mega" and you re-partner them and the next time "say 7 days later" they have a baby again at 9pm, could it up "better" your chance to get a mega again. "Just a stone in the bushes"! Or should we look at total "Say a 1000 of a kind furs" one different size cat allotted by sever. The word random is always "part of a routine in a program"! The percentage winnings on a slot machine can be set...... is it really random then?

Just something to think of......