I know this was trying to be funny, but that algorithm didn’t really use simulation to estimate 7 x 5. It just calculates 7 x 5 a bunch of times and takes the average, with the added step of multiplying and dividing by AB.
But then, I’m maybe not creative enough to come up with an algorithm that would actually output an approximation of 7 x 5 using some probabilistic method that doesn’t include calculating 7 x 5.
#!/usr/bin/python
from random import random
trials=200
hits=0
for i in range(trials):
x=random()
y=random()
if x<.7:
if y<.5:
hits+=1
print 100*(float(hits)/float(trials))
Yeah, I guess I should have made the effort to understand the principles of the subject I was reading about rather than do a random trivial programming exercise with no general applicability whose dominance by simple mathematics I could have predicted a priori.
I know this was trying to be funny, but that algorithm didn’t really use simulation to estimate 7 x 5. It just calculates 7 x 5 a bunch of times and takes the average, with the added step of multiplying and dividing by AB.
But then, I’m maybe not creative enough to come up with an algorithm that would actually output an approximation of 7 x 5 using some probabilistic method that doesn’t include calculating 7 x 5.
Throw darts at a unit square, take the fraction that hit a point (x < .7, y < .5) and multiply by 100. (Also works to calculate pi.)
I get 36.0.
It’s samping variation. Set trials = 1e9 and see what you get.
If I knew how to take fractions, I would have just done 7/(1/5).
Yeah, I guess I should have made the effort to understand the principles of the subject I was reading about rather than do a random trivial programming exercise with no general applicability whose dominance by simple mathematics I could have predicted a priori.