what is 50% in real life

[waterzx]

The funny thing is that sometimes in my code I use:

If (Math.random()>.5){
   do something
}
 
Sometimes I use:
If (Math.random()<.5){
   do something
}

In both cases I get complaints about the RNG being biased, which means that not only it is biased, it can read your mind 
It decreases the returned number when you would prefer a big number and increases it when you want a small number!

I am going to insta-send this to Stephen Hawking because last time I checked there was no software capable of reading the human mind: I smell a Nobel prize coming my way  8)

http://www.elementsthegame.com/dusk.html (http://www.elementsthegame.com/dusk.html)

P.S. : If you are thinking that I should consider the case of the random number being ==.50000000000000000000000000000000 well, lol: I'll let you figure out why it does not matter.

I did expect such a quick reply !

Can you really read people's mind , Zanz ?

Anyway, now it seems Murphy's law is behind the whole thing

[sunyata]

Found that I missed a "3".  Edited my first post.
Also tested the 2002 - coin toss experiment using a statistic software (R). I did the 2002 coin toss experiment 100.000 times. In none of these experiments I got more than ~56 % head.

Nice to see there's another R user on EtG. One of the best pieces of open-source software in existence.
The correct test to use here is a binomial test.  We can use the simple code

binom.test(724,2002,(1/2),alternative="two.sided")

in R to calculate the probability that a 50% prob shield would give 724 misses out of 2002 trials.  It comes out as probability = 2.2x10^-16.  In other words, if OP counted successes/failures correctly it is unequivocal that the probability is not 50%.

[Kardo]

Just throwing it out there. Is it possible OP used Adrenaline to increase the speed of testing and somehow Adren reacts badly with Dusk/Fog shield?

[ralouf]

Did like ET and got 51.4522821576763% success in my attack. That's just in you mind that dusk is bugged :p (OK in mine too :p)

[teffy]

Good that the experiment in the OP is not repeatable...

P.S. : If you are thinking that I should consider the case of the random number being ==.50000000000000000000000000000000 well, lol: I'll let you figure out why it does not matter.

However, 0.5 is an existing machine number, and excluding this case could bring us very rare bugs, which we could see once in a lifetime (or more seldom). My guess is 1 : 2^30 (~1 billion) or 1: 2^62  (4 *10^18) per random number. Math.random doesn´t choose each machine number with the same probability, but the dimension should be correct. Can 0.5 be chosen by math.random() ?.

[Wizy]

Math.random()>.5 should be in theory more accurate, since the random function will never return exactly 1 but it may return exactly 0 (albeit almost impossible) thus 0.5 would be less than half.
Anyway, the range of error is so small, it will not make any difference.

[sunyata]

Math.random()>.5 should be in theory more accurate, since the random function will never return exactly 1 but it may return exactly 0 (albeit almost impossible) thus 0.5 would be less than half.
Anyway, the range of error is so small, it will not make any difference.

Too right it won't make any measurable difference.  Actionscript uses 64bit number type, so the prob of getting exactly 0.5 is less than 1 in 30,000,000,000,000,000,000.  You'd have a better chance of winning the UK, European, and USA lotteries all on the 29th February.

The code zanz used is fine.  The problem is either with the RNG, or (in light of the issue not being replicated by others) the OP's measurements.