Return to Answer

As mentioned in the comments, your testing method is off.

You draw x times a number between 0 and x. The probability that a specific number is not drawn is:

As x approaches infinity, p will go towards 1/e (or approx. 36.7879441%) And this is the number you are seeing in your results. Also, as x approaches infinity, you will observe this probability as outcome of your sample (Law of large numbers)

This has to do with probability. When you have a bowl with a red and a white marble. And you take one, put it back an take another one you cannot guarantee that you see both. You could take the red one twice. You are doing the same thing with more objects.

To elaborate on true true randomness:

I would expect close to 99% percent instead of 64%. Or at least 90%+ percent. So you say this isn't possible with current technology

That is simple. Thank to modern math, technology and my super powers, I can tell you how to do that: You need more draws than numbers to choose from. The formula becomes:

where n is you desired percentage of missing numbers. For example if you are willing to accept 5% numbers missing, you must draw three times as many random numbers. For a 1% chance, you need to iterate 4.6 times the maximum number.

This math, assumes a perfectly uniform random number generation.

As mentioned in the comments, your testing method is off.

You draw x times a number between 0 and x. The probability that a specific number is not drawn is:

As x approaches infinity, p will go towards 1/e (or approx. 36.7879441%) And this is the number you are seeing in your results. Also, as x approaches infinity, you will observe this probability as outcome of your sample (Law of large numbers)

This has to do with probability. When you have a bowl with a red and a white marble. And you take one, put it back an take another one you cannot guarantee that you see both. You could take the red one twice. You are doing the same thing with more objects.

To elaborate on true true randomness:

I would expect close to 99% percent instead of 64%. Or at least 90%+ percent. So you say this isn't possible with current technology

That is simple. Thanks to modern math, technology and my super powers I can tell you how to do that: You need more draws than numbers to choose from. The formula becomes:

where n is you desired percentage of missing numbers. For example if you are willing to accept 5% numbers missing, you must draw three times as many random numbers. For a 1% chance, you need to iterate 4.6 times the maximum number.

This math assumes a perfectly uniform random number generation.

As mentioned in the comments, your testing method is off.

You draw x times a number between 0 and x. The probability that a specific number is not drawn is:

As x approaches infinity, p will go towards 1/e (or approx. 36.7879441%) And this is the number you are seeing in your results. Also, as x approaches infinity, you will observe this probability as outcome of your sample (Law of large numbers)

This has to do with probability. When you have a bowl with a red and a white marble. And you take one, put it back an take another one you cannot guarantee that you see both. You could take the red one twice. You are doing the same thing with more objects.

To elaborate on true true randomness:

I would expect close to 99% percent instead of 64%. Or at least 90%+ percent. So you say this isn't possible with current technology

That is simple. Thank to modern math, technology and my super powers, I can tell you how to do that: You need more draws than numbers to choose from. The formula becomes:

where n is you desired percentage of missing numbers. For example if you are willing to accept 5% numbers missing, you must darw three times as many random numbers. For a 1% chance, you need to iterate 4.6 times the maximum number.

This math, assumes a perfectly uniform random number generation.

As mentioned in the comments, your testing method is off.

You draw x times a number between 0 and x. The probability that a specific number is not drawn is:

As x approaches infinity, p will go towards 1/e (or approx. 36.7879441%) And this is the number you are seeing in your results. Also, as x approaches infinity, you will observe this probability as outcome of your sample (Law of large numbers)

This has to do with probability. When you have a bowl with a red and a white marble. And you take one, put it back an take another one you cannot guarantee that you see both. You could take the red one twice. You are doing the same thing with more objects.

To elaborate on true true randomness:

I would expect close to 99% percent instead of 64%. Or at least 90%+ percent. So you say this isn't possible with current technology

That is simple. Thank to modern math, technology and my super powers, I can tell you how to do that: You need more draws than numbers to choose from. The formula becomes:

where n is you desired percentage of missing numbers. For example if you are willing to accept 5% numbers missing, you must draw three times as many random numbers. For a 1% chance, you need to iterate 4.6 times the maximum number.

This math, assumes a perfectly uniform random number generation.

As mentioned in the comments, your testing method is off.

You draw x times a number between 0 and x. The probability that a specific number is not drawn is:

As x approaches infinity, p will go towards 1/e (or approx. 36.7879441%) And this is the number you are seeing in your results. Also, as x approaches infinity, you will observe this probability as outcome of your sample (Law of large numbers)

This has to do with statistics. When you have a bowl with a red and a white marble. And you take one, put it back an take another one you cannot guarantee that you see both. You could take the red one twice. You are doing the same thing with more objects.

As mentioned in the comments, your testing method is off.

You draw x times a number between 0 and x. The probability that a specific number is not drawn is:

As x approaches infinity, p will go towards 1/e (or approx. 36.7879441%) And this is the number you are seeing in your results. Also, as x approaches infinity, you will observe this probability as outcome of your sample (Law of large numbers)

This has to do with probability. When you have a bowl with a red and a white marble. And you take one, put it back an take another one you cannot guarantee that you see both. You could take the red one twice. You are doing the same thing with more objects.

To elaborate on true true randomness:

I would expect close to 99% percent instead of 64%. Or at least 90%+ percent. So you say this isn't possible with current technology

That is simple. Thank to modern math, technology and my super powers, I can tell you how to do that: You need more draws than numbers to choose from. The formula becomes:

where n is you desired percentage of missing numbers. For example if you are willing to accept 5% numbers missing, you must darw three times as many random numbers. For a 1% chance, you need to iterate 4.6 times the maximum number.

This math, assumes a perfectly uniform random number generation.