Comments by "Oblithian" (@Oblithian) on "Numberphile" channel.

Weirdly before the first illustration was to the point I could see your conclusion was going to be one third, were drawn my instinctual answer was one half. But I believe there is an issue in which the simulations are made. Because they are defined by the method upon which the hypothesis was arrived. If you use a reasonably varied series of methods to generate random (as random as possible) lines in a circle, what would the simulation show? or is it a variable in itself that renders the problem incompletable (every probability between zero to 100% is possible) and as such are required to define the probability of the probabilities to ascertain the most likely result? Or is the issue once again that we are incapable of producing true randomization (or if you are one who argues that true randomization doesn't exist, but rather it is simply a lack of data).
1