Explanation: Random walk in 2D has a unity probability of making it back to the starting point as the number of steps approach infinity but random walk in 3D only has ~0.34.

    • sparky_gnome@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think that changes it actually. Even if the drunk guy lives on a floor that’s high up, he didn’t fly to get there, so there is some combo of random walking and moving that gets him back there. Like walking into an elevator that happens to be on the ground floor, and also happens to be going up to the right floor at that time. Or walking to the base of a staircase, and (50/50) randomly going up it. It definitely isn’t technically a 2d plane anymore, but there are still a finite number of 2d planes that he could be trying to get to ( the highest floor on the building with the most floors).

    • Gogo Sempai@programming.devOP
      12·
      1 year ago

      It’s a “shower thought” lol, not a research paper. Take it as a meme on random walk, which is always explained in universities using the example of a drunk guy so much so that it’s also known as “drunkard’s walk”. Should’ve posted this in a science/physics meme community, my bad.

        • Sethayy
          41·
          1 year ago

          NGL your comment has this vibe times a hundred to me

        • Gogo Sempai@programming.devOP
          1·
          1 year ago

          As I said, it’s a meme on the mathematical concept of random/drunkard walk. It’s not “wrong” given certain assumptions. For 2D, as the number of steps taken by a drunk tend to infinity, the probability of reaching the origin tends to 1:

          https://youtu.be/stgYW6M5o4k

          Real drunks don’t walk in pure 2D plane well of course they don’t, they don’t get infinite number of steps either. No need to take this so seriously. We all happily ignored the air resistance in physics class back in the day didn’t we? :)

    • Sethayy
      12·
      1 year ago

      Youre telling me people aren’t actually entirely 2 dimensional?? No way captain obvious, next thing youre gonna say is that knock knock doors are factually incorrect because no one is actually knocking on a door

      Tbh your lack of understanding the inperfection of mathematical models is the only stupid as fuck thing here