No, 212 and 100 are not equally random. Unless you’re trying to say that literally all numbers are equally random, 100 in the decimal system is much less random that 212.
Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets. At least Farenheit numbers were based on a chemical concoction that exhibits the same temperature output regardless of elevation or pressure that they used to calibrate.
Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets.
No, it’s literally not. 212 is much more random. Any number like 10, 100, 1000 etc. is less random than any other number, simply by virtue of our decimal system. Just like 2,4, 8 etc. are less random in a binary system.
This isn’t kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It’s temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn’t really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for…well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.
My guy, I’m not arguing whether the boiling temperature of water is a random point (because it isn’t random in any way, and I’m not interested in arguing that). I’m arguing one simple thing: assigning something on a scale to 100 is much less random than assigning it to 212.
You have no understanding of randomness if you think that 100 is equally random as 212 in our decimal system. No, not every number is equally random, no matter how often you repeat it.
I understand you have a fetish for numbers that are multiples of ten, but that doesn’t make them special. Picking a number out of a hat is as likely to be a 9 as a 100.
212 and 100 are both equally random numbers. There’s nothing special about either. Besides, water boils about 205/95 on my hill.
No, 212 and 100 are not equally random. Unless you’re trying to say that literally all numbers are equally random, 100 in the decimal system is much less random that 212.
Assigning the number 100 to the temperature pure water boils at sea level under specific conditions is as random as it gets. At least Farenheit numbers were based on a chemical concoction that exhibits the same temperature output regardless of elevation or pressure that they used to calibrate.
No, it’s literally not. 212 is much more random. Any number like 10, 100, 1000 etc. is less random than any other number, simply by virtue of our decimal system. Just like 2,4, 8 etc. are less random in a binary system.
This isn’t kilometers, area, volume, distant measurement. It’s temperature. What that 100 is based on is random as fuck, and having the temperature of one elements boiling point at sea level divisible by 10 doesn’t really help anything. There is a 100 degree point in Farenhenheit too, you could simply use that for…well whatever reason you need ten to go in evenly.
My guy, I’m not arguing whether the boiling temperature of water is a random point (because it isn’t random in any way, and I’m not interested in arguing that). I’m arguing one simple thing: assigning something on a scale to 100 is much less random than assigning it to 212.
I don’t think you have a very clear grasp on what random means, and 212 wasn’t assigned.
You have no understanding of randomness if you think that 100 is equally random as 212 in our decimal system. No, not every number is equally random, no matter how often you repeat it.
I understand you have a fetish for numbers that are multiples of ten, but that doesn’t make them special. Picking a number out of a hat is as likely to be a 9 as a 100.