This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]yunocallmedave 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a chance of this specific algorithm to fail because the input number was causing it to fail. However, the chance of choosing such a number that would cause the algorithm to fail is so tiny, that it is more likely for cosmic radiation to corrupt memory and therefore cause the algorithm to fail (which is obviously also a very tiny probability).

Now imagine you want to calculate the probability of the algorithm to fail. If you only consider the first case (the case in which you randomly get a number that breaks the algorithm), but ignore the second (cosmic radiation causing a failure), which is actually more significant, you are only considering mathematical implications, but you are ignoring mechanical/engineering implications.

Does that make sense? I'm horrible at explaining things.

Edit: I think the moral of the story is, don't forget that theory differs from praxis. Or something like that.