visningar 3,147,307

Buy my book Humble Pi now!

www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/610964/humble-pi-by-matt-parker/

UPDATE: Harvard Book Store have totally sold out.

My talk on 4 February 2021 at Harvard Book Store:

www.harvard.com/event/virtual_event_matt_parker/

Here is the original accusation against Dream.

Video: secycle.info/lift/video/ZoO_25t-mK96w2o&ab_channel=Geosquare

Paper: mcspeedrun.com/dream.pdf

And here is Dream's reply.

Video: secycle.info/lift/video/ap_X1LWkg7mhuoc&ab_channel=DreamXD

Paper: drive.google.com/file/d/1yfLURFdDhMfrvI2cFMdYM8f_M_IRoAlM/view

"Matt flips a coin 100 times."

secycle.info/lift/video/jWi-2MumZpqqz3s

"Holy Craps! How a Gambling Grandma Broke the Record"

content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1901663,00.html

Number of casinos in the world in 2011: 3,547

www.statista.com/statistics/221031/total-worldwide-casinos-by-region/

Roulette records.

www.roulette17.com/stories/record-reds-blacks-in-a-row/

CORRECTIONS

- At 09:08 I say “1 in 110 trillion” when I meant to say “1 in 110 billion”. The number on the screen is correct, it was just a verbal slip-up.

- At 25:27 I showed the 118 craps record as “1 in 1.2 × 10^9” when it should be “1 in 2.2 × 10^9”. The voiceover says the correct number.

- I slip and “more likely” instead of “less likely” at 33:47 (I think I may have even been going for “more unlikely”). But everything in the screen is correct.

- Let me know if you spot any more mistakes!

Thanks to my Patreon supporters who mean I can spend [[REDACTED]] hours filming myself trying to achieve improbably things. If you support me, you can get access to all [[REDACTED]] hours of bonus footage from this episode.

www.patreon.com/standupmaths

As always: thanks to Jane Street who support my channel. They're amazing. And I believe they have no opinion on Dream.

www.janestreet.com/

Endless filming by Matt Parker

Editing by Alex Genn-Bash

Some graphics by Ben Sparks

Minecraft consultancy by Oliver Dunk

Music by Howard Carter

Design by Simon Wright and Adam Robinson

MATT PARKER: Stand-up Mathematician

Website: standupmaths.com/

US book: www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/610964/humble-pi-by-matt-parker/

UK book: mathsgear.co.uk/collections/books/products/humble-pi-signed-paperback

did you feel a little weird saying the same sentence over and over again?^^

jkm

Sneaky magnet behind the board?

I'm super in the idle Heroes and a lot of it is based on RNG and a lot of people in like the Facebook groups will talk about people cheating and hacks is stupid stuff like that because they're too stupid to realize that people are lucky and people are smart and can figure out how to use luck to their advantage and quantify that but whatever.

I wonder how long the bball thing took XD

I thought I was gonna have to pause the video, go away, and complete a major in mathematics.

this guy should play the lotto

Can somebody recommend a source if I want to dive a bit deeper into the maths behind the stuff in this video, regarding having n coin flips, what is the probability to get k times the same outcome in a row at some point?

I think the most intuitive way of doing it is with a markov chain. You can make those pretty easily as spreadsheets. A markov chain is, fundamentally, a little state machine with the property that it only cares about where it is *now* but not about anything else. So if you want to know, say, the probability of getting a streak of 2 heads in four coin tosses, you can do it like this. You know that if you currently have 0 heads in a row, the probability that you have 1 head next time is 1/2, and 1/2 chance that you stay at 0 heads. If you currently have 1 head, the probability that you have 2 heads next is 1/2, the probability that you have 0 heads is 1/2. And if you have 2 heads, then you just stop thinking about that streak because it's clearly already done. And then you can tell a spreadsheet to do that for you.

Side note: So much better with the beard. Where did it go again?

Well this is just perfect.. am both subed to a few speed run channals and Numberfile, so YT really got this recommendation right🙂

Dude holy crap. Like, I look at “getting 42/262 when 12/262 is the drop rate” and think “eh that’s lucky but doesn’t seem insane” until you actually do the math on it. That’s bonkers.

Yeah. The intuition that's important to have is that doubling the amount of trials obviously doubles the mean, but it doesn't double the standard deviation (how much we expect something to vary) It only multiplies that by the *square root* of two. So when if you have *four* times the amount of trials, you only get twice the deviation, even though the mean is four times as big. So suddenly this relatively small deviation (in absolute terms) becomes a completely unsurmountable mountain.

No such thing as being too lucky on the poker machines

17:16 poor book :( at least they landed on the shelf

Perhaps God made it happen that he got that speed run done legally, yet Dream's attitude in defending himself is what's being addressed.

@JOSEPH WODARCZYK and specifically into Dream

@XraynPR exclusively java though.

God is into Minecraft?

This is a masterpiece. My goodness this is math-fiesta!

There is just one thing bugging me about this theory. What if people speedran minecraft for another thousand years and Dream's speedrun was still the only one who had such incredible luck. Then it wouldn't be as less likely anymore, would it?

The individual event would be just as unlikely but technically yes, the probability of that luck having occurred in a thousand years would be higher. It still doesn’t really help dreams case though as the maths shown in the video demonstrate that even if we expand beyond minecraft it would take millions of years for this luck to occur so a thousand years would barely put a dent in that.

This is all irrelevant, you see, he just had a really good gaming chair

It’s clearly scripted

I am here by random chance, but I like both Minecraft and mathematics, so I subscribed.

If you like minecraft and mathematics the yt algorithm likely knows that too so you aren't here by random chance.

Never seen so much work put into proving somebody did or didn’t get 4th place

One thing that is flawed about the math is that, blazes can drop more than one rod per death and piglins usually give you 6ish enderpearls

Blazes only drop more than one rod if you have the looting enchantment, which Dream didn't. For the ender pearls, the math is adding the amount of pearl barters, not the amount of pearls the barters give you.

This channel feels like watching those old school 90's educational shows.

Okay but how did you land that dart shot at the begging?

Remember, to see where are dream stans scroll by new like you do on Reddit

I got 32 tails in a row once with a normal penny. What's the probably of that?

@crash woah, i still always find it amazing to just shuffle a deck of cards and know that is could be a deck never shuffled resulting in that order before or even again in the future

.5^32=0.00000000023283... Unlikely but also not entirely random either as flipping a coin does have a bit of a human element to it.

.....so you’re sayin there’s a chance!

I don’t think that is how chance works, if there is a chance it happens you can’t say that it is never gonna happen

The guy is literally a mathematician, he knows what he's talking about.

There's also a chance that every atom in me will quantum tunnel so I basically teleport ontop of mount everest so that's possible too.

@XraynPR he didn't

that's exactly what the video is about, did you watch it?

What if he did do it though

23:30 how many takes did it take to get both of those in the same shot?

Matt, bought your book in the UK for our flight back to Australia next week (assuming it's not delayed again). Thanks for making math fun :) I actually bought it as a friend recommended it so you've got word of mouth going there!

The blaze rods have a much higher drop chance if he had an enchanted sword in the off hand. Maybe he found one once and used it to farm a lot of blaze rods, destroying the whole statistics? I don't know the propability of this theory either.

@Thomas Schmidt It's all good. The data came from a total of 24 hours of speedrunning

@Fluffy White Llama I didn't know all data was from speedruns.

He never had that enchantment. I would be impressed if someone even managed to get looting during a speedrun.

he didn't

Hasn't Illumina beat Dreams records? So why does any of this matter I could see if he was number 1 in the world cheating people for fame and money but right now who cares if you enjoy his content

I care because i trusted dream but now i don't. Also the leaderboards exist for keeping track of everyones times not just the WR.

Dream never held the 1.16 wr, he got 4th, currently his time would be ranked around 160th if it was still on the boards. Cheating is still cheating, by taking 4th place he denied someone the position that actually worked for it. Does cheating in athletics only matter if you win the Olympics?

Most speedrunners have common luck, since most of the speedrunners are very skilled in the game and speedrun the game very fast.

he fooled millions of his fans.

Brilliant video. Everything about it is pure quality.

the subtle look of satisfaction in your face when that went in at 10:10 😂

10:37 sees Dani_ *there's dad!*

Well...I found 2 dollars today I feel lucky enough for a week!

Crazy, I find it interesting that one of the least likely statistical miracles we've all experienced that I can think of off the top of my head which is just the fact any of us specifically happening to be born is more likely than this Dream guy having legitimately accomplished this supposed feat. For you math nerds; probability of your birth: 1 in 4 x 10^14 (that's 1 in 400 trillion with a 'T') The probability of Dream not cheating has ~8 more zeros tacked onto the end...fascinating, but I guess it only has to happen once.

To be fair, this is also kind of addressed in the video. There's a difference between throwing a dart out of a plane and having it land on a bullseye and throwing one out of the plane and painting a target around it.

Dreams run was so unlikely that the word improbable is misleading.

Did you account for the fact that he stops killing blaze/trading for pearls once he has the necessary amount of that item? For example, if your goal is to roll a 7, 5 times, with two dice. You will always roll a seven on the final roll because you don't keep rolling after. Same with killing blaze and trading for pearls. Also there are enchanted items in MineCraft the greatly increase the drop percentages on blaze rods. I'm not sure if he had acquired any during the playthroughs but that could make a difference too. Idk if this would make enough of a difference to change anything but it could be worth looking into.

that moment when you say Minecraft as MineCraft

Stopping rule only applies on the very last trade, if ever. The difference it could make is negligible (although I’m pretty sure they accounted for it anyway).

Everything here was accounted for. Dream never had the looting enchantment on his weapons so we don't have to worry about that, and the stopping rule doesn't apply to Dream's odds. Others have explained it but to put it simply, Dream never stops bartering/killing blazes permanently. After one stream, he moves onto the next one where he does more barters and blaze kills.

Oh gosh I had just learned how to use z-tables!

sounds like you watch summoning salt videos

A philosophical question: does randomness even exist? Asked differently: are there (or can there even be) sources of randomness? There are sources of unpredictability (like rolling dice), but whether our universe is deterministic or non-deterministic is unknown - whether it contains (or is linked to inside or outside) sources of randomness. Let's roll two dice, your eyes will see the result and let's assume your result R0 is governed by randomness. But to determine the outcomd of your dice, there must be "something/someone", unseen in the background, that "rolled his own dice" (R1), to determine the result of your dice in the first place! But to get randomness into R1, there must be a R2, which in turn needs a R3 to feed its randomness, then a R4 etc. The whole concept of "source of randomness" becomes an infinite loop! So from this point of view only two scenarios appear on the surface: A) there is a "God of Randomness" or B) randomness does not exist, our universe is 100% deterministic. Gods throwing their "magical dice" (rock bottom randomness; results even unknown to them!) to determine outcomes, used where they don't want to decide the outcome themselves, sounds quite crazy. Although, on closer inspection the the concept of (source of) randomness is crazy in itself! Logic, mathematics or physics can't find, expose, create, generate or explain (sources of) randomness. Maths and computer programs can only create sequences of pseudo-random numbers. Then (as far as we know or believe) classical or quantum physics can only create unpredictability. Randomness is a great mystery...

How funny. I watch this video all the way through, go back to the SEcycle homepage, then check my clock. It's 3:14. I knew I had to come back to write this

Guys, guys, guys. I know I'm late but the reason Dream was so good was because of the RGB in his pc. It's that simple!

They haven’t factored in his good gaming chair

Th ten billion human second century concept is amazing, and I'm saddened there's not another video on this but should it be in a future video I will be delighted. An excellent way of showing just how unlikely something is.

That one guy defending dream:"but its possible to occure therefore dream is innocent!"

That's where the concept of a reasonable doubt comes in. Are the odds of 10B humans, doing the same thing once per second non-stop and still having the desired event occur only once every 100,000 years on average, reasonable? Even if it is theoretically possible, it's so astronomically unlikely as to render any debate moot. We can never be sure, but our confidence is as close to certainty as you can ever hope to get in practice. Unless this was a supervised competition, fully audited, everything airtight - such a result should be thrown away immediately. Even in the most ideal of conditions, it would merit an extensive investigation.

Wonder how many times he filmed the darts and basketball parts and had to redo it lol

Dude perfect: PATHETIC

How lucky is too lucky?? How many tries did that book throw take??

Minecraft: We're big in the news! EVE Online, KSP: First time?

Am i missing something ? I play ksp and used eve for a while

26:09 dude.... That's a lot of craps

Did anyone else start again from 1:08 to see if he started with a beard

i like how there was 5050 runs for flipping a coin 100 times

TLDR; Dream hacked, get over it kid

This is probably the best delivered explanation of this whole situation. It’s also explained very simply which is really nice

My question is, aren't the other streams available? Couldn't they look at the stats that occurred over all 11 streams?

@Elliott Hynes Nah, it makes the odds look better. It takes it from an astoundingly nonsensical one to a plausible one. But it only does this by combining runs where Dream actually got legitimately RNGfucked with these later runs where he gets absurdly "lucky", and it's silly because the runs simply don't look like they would have come from the same distribution at all.

They have! Check out antvenoms video, I think it makes the odds look worse.

Doing that is just going to obfuscate the relevant numbers. There's really no reason to want to do that. For an analogy, imagine that you're looking at me flipping a coin. I get 30 flips that are all just about normal. Then suddenly after I leave and come back, I get 30 heads in a row. If you're wondering whether I changed my coin, you wouldn't add in results that I got with something we're pretty sure is a real coin.

Only thing I can think of that might have some kind of impact is if he found a Looting sword which could massively affect the Blaze Rod drops, but even then the bartering is pretty damning...

i hate dream

Me 2

Pretty sure most peole here do

He is too lucky. Let him be lucky. Kids follow the trend and such things. Kids would never follow real games where it require skills *cough * cough CSGO

@Damian Flett Go back and collect blocks.

Ok i feel like I’m getting trolled at this point. This reads like the ninja copypasta.

@Damian Flett Not at all lmfao, the point is to kill the dragon and that's all LMFAO Who cares about killing a dragon in less than 20 mins? A dragon? LMFAO

@Damian Flett Imagine killing a dragon..sure sounds very hard😂😂😂😂🙄🙄 and calling it hard...

@Tech Guy just pick up the blocks and place them, it can’t be that hard can it?

How long did it take to make that dart shot???

Uh

Great video, subscribed!

As a maths tutor with lots of Minecraft playing students, I just want to say a very heartfelt thank you for this video!

I freaking loved your video. Totally agree, mixing Minecraft with Mathematics education for a lovely purpose such as discovering CHEATING :D A PERFECT 10.

Obviously it’s because he’s the main character. But of course, he traded his home for it.

Hello sir, if I wish to buy the book, where can I buy the extended version? Does Harvard Book Store still sell the original and or the ext? I'd like to know, thank you in advance.

I literally just learned how to put numbers in and take numbers out of scientific notation in algebra class why am I here :’)

And he only got what would have been 4th place, what is 1st place odds!?!?!?!

@Shaltinanwenor that's correct, he was on world record pace until he was in the portal room

If memory serves, he was lacking one pearl when he went to the portal so he had to get another one. If he hadn't miscounted the pearls (or had a portal with one extra pearl in the portal) he was on pace for world first.

As mentioned in the video this is an analysis of the full 6 streams. The law of large numbers states that as more trials are completed the odds will then to converge on the true value. Therefore over the 6 streams we should be seeing drop rates in line with the theoretical value. To give you an example, say you are in a dice rolling competition with 100 other people and your goal is to roll three dice and get all sixes in as fewer rolls as possible. Normally the odds of getting three sixes is 0.5% but you modify the dice to give you a 6 40% of the time meaning your odds of getting the three sixes is 6.4% per trial. You have 10x better odds of winning the contest than anyone else but you still will likely lose because there are 100 other people playing. In this case Dream modified the dice to favour him but that doesn’t mean that a few of the thousand other people he is competing with won’t get individual runs that are luckier.

This wasn't the analysis of his odds in 1 run - it was an analysis of his odds over a week of streaming and hundreds of runs. His average luck over that long period of time was too high. You can get really lucky for just a small instant and it's not nearly as significant - it's sample size. Additionally, Dream is not the best speedrunner in the game and people can outperform him based on skill/strategy, no need to attribute the success of those on the leaderboard above him completely to luck.

But what if we had an enormous amount of bots playing minecraft... how many bot hours would it take to make these results likely... and is that even possible with the currently available processing power?

@Vasileios Lempesis No, just because a computer has done any amount of simulations, even if he did 10^25^25 amoutn of simulations, it still wouldn't change how likely it is that Dream did it. The only way to change it is if an actual run would be do-able in less time and thus be done more. Just because a simulation can simulate something within a second what a speedrunner has to do within 20 minutes or so doesn't change anything. It should not be taken into account. But if the run had been done after 10^22 times and there are runs that are almost equally as likely in there, then it becomes probable that a result like that has happened. Just like grinding in Doom or Goldeneye. If a newcomer to the speedrunning community gets a world record with incredible RNG then there are gonna be some eyebrows raised. Even though many other people have done those runs and gotten equivalent RNG it is still very unlikely for this one person to get this RNG on his first submitted run.

@Vasileios Lempesis Right, obviously we don't have to *actually* run runs, we can simulate them instead, and then we can probably get a lot more done. The question is how much fidelity to actual minecraft play we lose by doing so. Like in reality what we want to do is to try to get 42 ender pearl trades and 211 blaze rod drops and see how often we need less than 262 barters and 305 blaze kills - skipping out on the entire surrounding framework of Minecraft.

@Athenri that's an excellent answer. However we would not have to run the simulation in real time, it would be merely a question of processing power for the simulations to be run in just a few seconds. With enough processing power you could start a livestream, run all the simulations the first second of the stream and just playback the one that fits your purpose. What is missing from the equation of course is how much processing power it would take to do that. But I agree we would probably end up with a huge amount of time required. Some sources are claiming a global computing power of 2 x 10^20-1.5x10^21 FLOPS in 2015 others project that we will be in the 10^21 range in 2030...

@crash an outcome with odds in the 10^22 range would be almost inevitable after 10^25 attempts. For the sake of discussion, one could claim that if an AI on a supercomputer is able to run that many simulations within a reasonable amount of time, then in theory, that should be also accounted for in the "10 billion human second century" argument. If that many simulations were occuring somewhere then one could claim that the run was merely a chance event (if we can agree that human runs and simulations are to be counted together). I surely don't mean that you would have to believe them, but that it would have been a mathematically valid claim.

@Vasileios Lempesis You can do about 4 runs in an hour, so to match Dream's final run, around one in 8000, you'd need around 2000 bot hours. Totally not impossible. To match Dream's overall runs, we'll need 20 sextillion sets of...let's just say 32 runs. At 15 minutes per run, each set takes 8 hours. So we're, in the end, going to need around 160 sextillion bot hours before we expect a set to look as good as Dream's did. That's 1.6*10^23 bot hours. Let's assume we can run a billion bots concurrently. So we're getting 10^9 bot hours each hour. So we're getting 2.4*10^10 bot hours each day. We're doing it every day, around the clock, so in a year we get 8.76*10^12 bot hours out... So at one billion bots, we're going to need them to run for about 20 billion years before one of the sets is expected to be as good as Dream's. So if you had a billion bots running Minecraft non-stop trying to mimic Dream's runs for the entire existence of the universe to date, we still wouldn't get there. We'd be in the ballpark though!

Don't you love probabilities 😘

the human second century is slightly misleading in this case because a minecraft speedrun lasts over 10 minutes not 1 second

The fact that he counts every second as a run makes his chances seem even more unlikely

that's the point, and it isn't even just a single run but his sequence of runs over multiple streams. What he's doing is describing an upper bound to show how unlikely that sequence of runs actually was.

It's not misleading, you just fail to understand what he means. The human second century is just to give the odds a scale. It's odd to think about, but just imagine that people do a set of 6 minecraft streams just like he did and try to get his odds, but shrunken down into one second, and they do that every second for a century. It's weird that that much stuff is supposed to fit into a second, but seconds in a century are just meant to show how much it happens.

Do you have a methlab?

This guy looks like Dorian Yates if he decided to become a mathematician instead of a bodybuilder

17:17 ... Nice

We want bloopers

Patricia breaking the world record in roulette and craps directly after each other really sunk any chance Dream had to convince the world. Btw, what is minecraft?

The beard is 10/10

3,14/2,71

11/10

Hello. Nice video. But nowdays, there are more speedruns like that and Dream is not the fastest anymore. How lucky they must be.

the strats in minecraft speedrunning has changed since dream's cheating controversy. it is now even more skill-based than luck. instead of getting lucky with pearls, you just need to find a bastion which is easy with strats like eray

They have faster times because they are better and use more optimized strategies. Dream is not the best minecraft speedrunner in the slightest. You do not need to be luckier than him to beat him. Anyways, people who use modern strategies trade so much gold with bastions that they don't actually need to get lucky to complete runs quickly.

Dreams luck in his submitted run are not suspicious, it’s suspicious that over the 6 streams he got consistently high rates which is incredibly unlikely. It’s like comparing getting 7/10 heads and comparing it to 70/100 heads. Same rate, vastly different probabilities. Also new runs use loads of new meta with ocean strays, bastions to minimise luck required in trading, quadrants in the nether etc. It’s basically a new run since Dream was doing it.

Not nearly as lucky, honestly.

Bell curves don't lie.

10:31 Dani 10th very cool.

Guys, he just had a good gaming chair

Why do people always just unanimously decide that they like someone... who then turn out that they’re in some massive drama.

I was going to put a neutrality phrase and then saw ur pfp

Astrophysicist getting the statistics wrong... no surprise here... astronomical ladder, Betelgeuse distance "correction", etc..

The Astrophysicist doesn't exist. This is legitimately highschool level math.

Glad that Scott Stapp became an educational youtuber. Didn't know he was British.

This is my first time here. I've never enjoyed math so much.😀

I love how seriously you learned the ins and outs of the minecraft speedrun. Shows a lot of respect. ♡(◡‿◡✿)

I don't want to know how many attempts he needed for the intro.

Curious why the puzzle on his book shelf during the bowling pins in background was not turned to full completion (maybe just me)

Timestamps for all lucky shots: 0:12 Dart 6:39 Basket 1.1 6:45 Basket 1.2 9:42 Basket 2.1 9:47 Basket 2.2 9:53 Basket 2.3 10:10 Basket 2.4 31:51 Pins

23:30 dice

@Hazel the book one is just crazy.

Thanks, also u forgot the book one at 17:16

i like watching people finishing games AFAP as well, especially when they need more skill than luck, like mario kart.

I don't quite get it having insane odds means that you probably should'nt attempt it but when you got it you can't say that it didn't happened. I mean patricia getting 154 runs thus nobody having ever done more than 118 doesn't mean it's wrong cause someone should've get 119 to 153 runs before jumping to 154

Probabilities of what that streamer did are wrong here. As I understand from the video, a player makes barters until they have necessary amount of pearls. So it is not correct to calculate the probability of X or more pearls for Y barters, it should be instead the probability of Y or less barters for X pearls. Simple example of what I mean: a coin was tossed twice. It came up tails once. What is a probability for that? It depends of what the process was. First option: a coin was tossed twice. There are 4 possible outcomes, in 2 of them the coin come up tails once. So, the probability = 1/2. Second option: a coin was tossed until it came up tails exactly once. It means for the first toss the coin came up heads, and for the second toss it came up tails. So, the probability = 1/4.

@crash I did not say that probabilities change depending on what happens before or after, I said that probabilities change depending on what the process is. If a process is "toss a coin 2 times", then there are 4 equally probable outcomes, in 2 of them the coin comes up tails exactly once. Therefore the probability of "2 tosses, 1 tails" is 1/2. If a process is "toss a coin until it comes up tails", then there are infinitely many possible outcomes, in all of them the coin comes up tails exactly once. But all these outcomes have different number of coin tosses. Probability for an outcome with N tosses is 1/2^N. Therefore the probability of "2 tosses, 1 tails" is 1/4.

@crash nah, you're not understanding his comment. Probabilities model situations and it is, I agree, much more reasonable to ask the question of "how likely is it to get this many pearls this quickly" than "how likely is it to get more than this amount of pearls in this amount of attempts", because the pearls is what you're fishing for.

No. Probabilities don't change depending on what happens before or after. You can account for any bias though which this video goes into but getting a heads or tails is always a 50/50 no matter what. I can toss a coin 20 times and get 20 heads, but whether my 21st flip will be a head or tails is still 50/50. There is nothing physically changing about the coin to change those odds. It doesn't care what happened before.

Why do people still not realize this means nothing? Whether it was astronomically lucky or not doesn't tell you whether or not the run is impossible, just how likely it is. If you can imagine it, and the laws of physics don't prevent it, then you have to be prepared for the possibility. All anyone has been able to do is prove that the run is just really unlikely. Want to know what else is unlikely? Astatine, the rarest element on the planet. If you want a chance of finding enough atoms together to make 1 gram of the stuff, you're gonna need to check an average of 30 quintillion tons of matter on our planet. So if you go out and find it all on your first 1 thousand, that's not evidence of cheating, that's just another instance of possible things that can happen when you make your system probabilistic. If anyone ever does it again, then your intuition about how unlikely it is is wrong. If no one ever does it again, that means your math is right. But so what if your math is right? Again, all you've shown it's improbable. Improbability is not a synonym with impossibility, and the use of improbability to judge something as impossible is literally called the appeal to improbability fallacy. Everyone has tackled this investigation from the wrong angle. What you all should have been doing is trying to recreate the initial conditions under which the run took place, and see if an unmodified version of the game would produce the same results. Either it would, or it wouldn't, and then you'd have a clear yes or no answer.

@crash u destroyed that guy. great work

@Snow the Mega Absol Congratulations, you've failed logic. The CCTV footage shows the face of the man, yet they can be either person, but never both. We know it has to be one of them but this 'empirical evidence' doesn't prove which one it is. The probability of me is 100%. I'm here. Like in the video, there's a difference between hitting a bullseye by throwing a dart out of the window of a plane and throwing one out and painting a target around it. Nice fallacy. If this is how you make your arguments then I'm afraid you've already lost. "The role judges serve in a court are as interpreters of words in laws that are not well defined by the authors of those laws." Same thing with this. "Either the rules were broken, or they weren't." And is dust floating around our planet moons or not? It isn't all black and white, and having a team like this try to find the answer and using all the resources they have to find the most likely answer is the best they can do. Again, someone can just get 100% drop rates and according to your logic, they shouldn't be held accountable. Obviously, this logic is flawed. Yet now you claim that the opposite is true simply because it isn't quite as bad? I don't think you realize the numbers at play. "Yeah kinda" Thank you. You may continue to your totally irrational worldview of how everything is wrong and your idea of the world is the only correct one and basing anything off of anything but 100% certainties is considered wrong.

"but what if CCTV footage shows the face of the doppelganger? Is that empirical?" Yes "What about if he wore the same clothes as the convicted in court? They could've shopped at the same store." A quick check with the purchase history of that store would answer that. "Technically all possible." Indeed "Plenty of times has someone been convicted using CCTV footage." And the legal system is regarded as incredibly biased and broken, this is just one reason why "So according to your logic, these people should be freed from prison, right?" You haven't understood a thing I said. I'm not defending or accusing anyone, I'm pointing out that the methods yall have chosen to pass the conviction are fundamentally fallacious. "Idk why you have such a problem with 'the odds are too small to be considered likely enough to have happened'." The probability of you existing if we be generous and only go back to the start of the history of an anatomically modern human is in the ballpark of 0.0000000000000000000003%. That's too unlikely to consider that it could ever happen, so you don't exist and I'm just hallucinating. That's why it's objectively problematic. "Everyone else seems to accept this, yet you don't." So? That doesn't make it more true. I smell an argument from popularity. "If someone flips a coin 20 times and gets 11 heads and 9 tails and then leaves the room. When he comes back the flips it another 30 times and gets 30 tails in a row. " Ok "No rational person would simply believe he is still using a normal coin." So the inspect the coin? It's really not as complicated as you're making it out to be. 'And using this to devalidate a speedrun is not arbitrary" It is arbitrary by definition "This is why courts have judges." The role judges serve in a court are as interpreters of words in laws that are not well defined by the authors of those laws. "You can't just put down rules in a book and have everything going smoothly." The equivalence to a court room and a speedrun is flawed because of this. A jury is not just legal, but political and moral. They have to decide not only based on the law, but what they feel is a big deal and whether or not they think what even happened was fundamentally a bad thing. They also don't have the totality and sheer volume of actual empirical evidence that we do, because that evidence is in a lot of cases physical, and investigators have deadlines. With a speedrun, you're hopefully not considering the ethics of what has happened. Either the rules were broken, or they weren't. If you're still trying to figure that out, don't make a decision prematurely. No one has actually figured it out yet. Likelihood is not a substitute for certainty. "Saying this is arbitrary is saying any judgement system using a jury is arbitrary as well." Yeah kinda. The only reason you bring in a jury is because there are no conclusive results. If there are, the case never gets to the court room. The role of the jury is to make a choice when investigation has not been able to, and has no obligation to be composed of people who specialize in the field and understand how to spot a fallacy.

@Snow the Mega Absol but what if CCTV footage shows the face of the doppelganger? Is that empirical? What about if he wore the same clothes as the convicted in court? They could've shopped at the same store. Technically all possible. Plenty of times has someone been convicted using CCTV footage. So according to your logic, these people should be freed from prison, right? Idk why you have such a problem with 'the odds are too small to be considered likely enough to have happened'. Everyone else seems to accept this, yet you don't. If someone flips a coin 20 times and gets 11 heads and 9 tails and then leaves the room. When he comes back the flips it another 30 times and gets 30 tails in a row. No rational person would simply believe he is still using a normal coin. And using this to devalidate a speedrun is not arbitrary. It's using likelyhood and statistics to come to a conclusion. This is why courts have judges. You can't just put down rules in a book and have everything going smoothly. Lines aren't always black and white. Saying this is arbitrary is saying any judgement system using a jury is arbitrary as well.

@Snow the Mega Absol do you need to define a point to pass judgement? You probably use the term moon. But it has no real definition. Do the thousands of tiny rocks orbiting a planet count as a moon? Does dust? Yet you still use the definition so trying to get the highground like this is not gonna work. What if a streamer has 24 hours of footage of him getting a blaze rod every kill and a pearl drop every barter? Do you think we should say those runs are valid? Should we free all prisoners who didn't confess on the off chance they have a doppelganger who committed the crime? Proven beyond any reasonable doubt. That's more than enough for this. And for your case of 'those big numbers are shaky and fluid at best' is unsubstantial. Unless you can show me slight changes in the droprates that make the number actually that much different. Millions of simulations couldn't get the drops Dream did, so obviously there's some validity to it. Even the number his own statistician came up with made him conclude that Dream likely altered the game.

Genius.

The ten billion human second century is an incredibly smart shortcut to look at odds and it feels like a concept I am going to use when thinking about rare events.

12:02 : bruh, the video will continue 30 minutes and you don’t habe time?!

Lotteries regularly go unwon, so the odds of someone winning it is not 1. It's nearly 1. But it isn't 1.

True but sometimes multiple people win, so I guess Matt was trying to say is that on average 1 person will win per draw? His wording could have been better though.

And he hasnt even taken world and nether spawns, gold drops and chest loot

This video was poggers

Dream: Sees this video. *Sweats profusely*

Don't disagree with anything you said, but as someone who dabbles with programming (especially java) I just want to quicky pip in. Random number generation in Java (and other codes) is not really random or fair. There are methods to seed the RNG functions to produce the same results multiple times over, which is why usually those RNG functions are fed a seed based on your system time so you actually get a "random" output (this is the default constructor of the object when you just call the random function). Similarly the same code ran through the same engine behaves differently based on what system or environment is running it, Java is especially notorious for this and doubly so with its random generation functions. This means theoretically it's also possible to fudge the game RNG one way or another based on what hardware is running it. I remember years ago testing this with a very simple code to write out an array of numbers between 0 and 10 and found some environments would overwhelmingly favor between 4 and 6 with few 1s or 9s while another would pretty much near evenly output all of the numbers.

This isn't *wrong* per se - but there are a couple of issues with it as applying to Minecraft: 1. Since this is across multiple runs, not just one, you'd want to know how often you hit a "degenerate" seed like that. 2. The seed is called thousands of times per second in the Nether, of which the RNG calls we're interested in constitute a low two-digit number here. This *is* in fact, a random sample of that generated sample, so unless you have reason to believe that the entire maybe 100k large sample is off and not just local regions inside it, that's a no-go. 3. In support of 2. you don't see results like this from any other speedrunners. 4. If he had, deliberately, somehow, found a way to set a seed in that version of Minecraft that would let him control the RNG for drops, for example, that would disqualify his run.

The chance of finding a 1/100 wild encounter rate shiny Pokemon (1/4096) with 6 perfect IVs (1/32^6), a favorable nature (1/25) and ability (1/2), it being the uncommon gender in a species with the most uncommon gender ratios (1/7), and holding an item with a 1/100 chance to be held... 1 in 1.54 x 10^19. This is about the rarest possible encounter possible in Pokemon without getting too much into the weeds, but according to Matt this occurrence is totally feasible. It demonstrates the astronomical luck that this streamer would have needed for his run to be legit. This happening in a community with many known cheaters on a game known for its seasoned modding community? I'm gonna bet that he's a cheater.

Chansey from freinds safari

@smol kookie However, I doubt there are any real pokemon that have a 1% occurrence somewhere, a 1% chance to hold a particular item, _and_ a 6:1 gender ratio.

It would be rarer if it had pokerus as well, and shiny rate was 1/8192 until gen 6

So if someone could only get 4th fastest with dubious means how did someone get the fastest time

What Athenri said - this analysis is about Dream's luck over a massive sample size of a whole week of playing. Being moderately lucky over a very long period of time can have a lower p-value than being extremely lucky for a moment. For example, getting 7/7 blaze rods and 2/2 pearls (perfect at the time of his run) is way more likely than getting his total drops over the week, even though he did not have an individual run getting that lucky.

What cheating like this gives you is not so much impossible results - what it gives you is impossible *consistency* in your results. None of Dream's runs were anywhere *near* impossible. His final run was about a one in 8000 occurrence. That's not *that* rare. The issue is that the consistency of those results across 24 hours worth of streaming was impossible.

5 takes and how many takes would it take to get that kind of luck in minecraft

"I'm not saying he used a hacked client with 100% certainty. I'm just saying that if every human being throughout the planet's entire lifetime realistically played Minecraft nonstop for 100 years of their lives until they pass away the chances of getting those odds would still be off." He's basically saying that because there's TECHNICALLY a chance going by the laws and rules of Math and Science to be professional here, but it's obvious that he's silently telling us and to avoid the dislikes by Dream's irrational fans that he 100% used a hacked client in his run.

@iArmyCombo don’t think you under how finding percentages and averages work mate

@Soot G They are treating every piglin drop as an individual situation and multiply it but every coin toss cant be multiplied cuz of what i said so how is piglin and blaze drops any different from rolling a multiple sided dice that has different sized sides.

@iArmyCombo stupid, quite stupid.

@iArmyCombo you should watch the video pal because what you said is thecnically correct but there is a lot more to it, belive me when i say that this guy knows what math is

@Owen Penner Didnt even watch the video but u prob did so tell me was i correct or just stupid

Kaband Art Production | قبنض للإنتاج والتوزيع الفني

visningar 824tn

Kaband Art Production | قبنض للإنتاج والتوزيع الفني

visningar 824tn

Stand-up Maths2 månader sedan