The way I calculate it, you have 10[sup]12[/sup] * 10[sup]12[/sup] * 10[sup]12[/sup] = 10[sup]36[/sup] decks of cards. There have been about 4x10[sup]17[/sup] seconds since the Big Bang, so there has been time for 10[sup]36[/sup] * 4x10[sup]17[/sup] * 1000 = 4x10[sup]56[/sup] shuffles. This is still more than 100 billion times smaller than the total possible combinations, so your example greatly understates how many possible combinations there are.
Doesn’t that really depend? Shredded Wheat at one end (nothing but wheat) and Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs at the other?
When it comes to sugar, not really. Shredded Wheat (Big Biscuit) claims 0 sugar on their label, but claims 41g of carbohydrates in 51g of cereal. After accounting for the fiber, those carbs are complex sugars, mostly from starch.
Coca-Cola has a fraction of that amount of sugar in 51g of cola. Of course that’s because it’s mostly water in weight which has 0 calories.
St. Andrews in Scotland has 7 courses , one is 9 holes. The most famous is the old course where the British open is played. They are all public courses but to play the old course you have to get a tee time way in advance. If you are lucky and show up without a time you might be able to join a group.
If I’m remembering my high school chemistry correctly, doesn’t the number of significant digits say something about the precision of the device used to make your measurement? Like if you say you measured 1.0 liters of water, you’re saying you measured 1 liter, and the container you used to measure it is delineated in tenth of a liter increments.
And that brings us to an interesting fact. You know the Mustang GT that Ford advertised as “5.0 liter”? The engine’s displacement is actually 4.9 liters. And that annoys me. Most people would probably say they’re just rounding up, no big deal. But if they’re going to round up, they shouldn’t include that extra significant digit. To me, that implies the number is accurate to the nearest tenth of a liter, which it isn’t.
If I say, “It contains 1.0 liters of water,” I am saying two things:
- The actual volume of water - whatever that might be - is closer to 1.0 liters than 1.1 liters.
and
- The actual volume of water - whatever that might be - is closer to 1.0 liters than 0.9 liters.
In other words, I’m saying the volume of water is 1 ±0.049999 liters.
In order to say this, my measurement device must have a readability of at least ±0.1 liters, and be accurate.
Did you conclude that it’s closer to 4.9 than 5.0 by converting 302 c.i. to liters?
If so, I was thinking that maybe they rounded down from a number that’s a little bigger than 302 and called it a 302. A number a little bigger than 302 would justify calling the 5.0 a 5.0 rather than a 4.9. So I did some calculating.
According to this web page, the Ford 5.0L Coyote Engine has a bore of 92.2mm and a stroke of 92.7mm. According to this bore and stroke calculator, that gives us 4951.34 cc (302.1493051 ci) for an 8 cylinder engine which converts to 4.95134 liters.
Only on the Dope would that math be checked. Don’t ever change people, don’t ever change…
I was thinking of the old “Fox body” Mustangs specifically, and I’ve seen several sources stating that the displacement was actually closer to 4.9 liters. Wikipedia lists it as “(4.94 L 301 cu in) small block V8[3] (marketed as a “5.0” model)”, for example. (Interestingly they also say it was 301 cu in). If you watch Doug DeMuro’s YouTube videos, he also mentioned that they were technically closer to 4.9 liters.
You might have been thinking of them, but you wrote GT. 
I specified examples. Excluding kid-sweetened junk at one end, and shredded wheat, a well-known outlier at the other.
Chris Rock had a routine where he said if you are on MLK Jr. drive leave quickly, because you most likely are in a bad part of town. Sad but true in many cities.
Precision is expressed as the number of decimal digits used, whether it’s a machine result or any other number. If the sum of 1+1 is given as 2.1234 is a very precise number, it’s just not accurate. The sum given as 2 is not as precise but it is more accurate. 2.000 is both very precise and very accurate. Of course some numbers can’t be expressed completely accurately with just decimal digits like pi because you would need infinite precision.
Displacement envy.
It’s the same way you go into a store to get a flat screen TV and find the “50-inch class” models. Firstly, it’s the diagonal measurement, the longest distance you can get and still stay within the screen’s dimensions. Second, the measurement is inevitably 49.5 inches.
I recently discovered a much more memorable mnemonic, to me anyway.
Mary’s “Virgin” Explanation Made Joseph Suspect Upstairs Neighbor.
Our noses have erectile tissue.
I heard this on NPR…lots of interesting stuff in here, worth a read.
Space shuttle was never tested in orbit before they had a manned mission. (It was tested in the atmosphere for landing) Saturn V was tested twice and one of those tests had a problem. By contrast the Falcon 9 rocket had over 80 successful missions before it had a manned mission last month.
Couple of bits o’ movie trivia I came across while sheltering in place:
George C. Scott caused filming delays during the filming of Patton because he stayed up all night trying to defeat one of the stuntmen in ping pong…while still in full costume as Patton.
Steve Martin wrote most of the songs for his album “Rare Bird Alert” while on the set of The Big Year, in which he plays a birding fanatic.
Scott did not want to do the speech at the beginning of Patton especially if it was at the start. They lied and told him it would not be at the start so he did it.