Identifying things that are not equal and cannot be identified by increasing differences

https://gyazo.com/35edac2678143b16e15cb3ce25b38f7e

On a related topic, in cases where the likelihood of error is not zero but is equated with zero, and the process is such that the difference is magnified, e.g., if you play the message game on a long report line, problems occur with a frequency that should be zero but does not seem to be zero.

On the other hand, it is theoretically possible to have a case where "things that were not identical become identical due to a reduction in difference," but I can't think of a particularly interesting case.

'Just a random repetition of seemingly equal transfers of funds creates disparity! Amazing!" I told him that it was neither a surprise nor a surprise.

The claim is that "equal rules with seemingly high equality of outcome" are not equal, but rather "1 close to 0", and "when 1 close to 0 is added repeatedly, the result is 100! Amazing!" It's no wonder, since we are adding non-zero values.

I explained that it is the same as adding 100 from the beginning, but if the listener thinks that 0 and 1 are the same and 100 and 1 are different, then this explanation does not make sense. I understood.

To reiterate, the variance is non-zero no matter how equal it appears to be except by distributing the same amount to everyone, etc., so if you add it independently to the ownership money, it will all "widen the gap". We need to change our perception that in the vast majority of cases the disparity will increase, and that it is only in a few special cases that it does not.

---