Well, I’m buying house numbers, and I notice a really strange distribution to what they include in a pack, leaving me wondering how they reach their implicit conclusion:
|number||pack includes _ of ‘em|
Ya, what the hell, am I right?
What is this? How do you come up with that.
Is this really what Benford’s Law, et cetera, really lead to?
Why would house numbers have a lot of 5s in them? Do they number by 5s somewhere? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that. Bizarre.
I’m not really complaining, seeing as how I really need 1s and 2s and occasionally a 3 & 0, it’s just odd.
I’ll just take this as a real-world Benford’s law adjustment. This is, quite literally, the hardware store interpretation of scale-invariant digit frequency of appearance. Bumford’s, maybe Bumford’s law states basically Benford’s but you have a lot of 5s, for some bizarre reason, and maybe extra 2s just in case. Perhaps a formal statement would give a +1 fudge factor to any prime factors of the base, on top of the difference-of-logarithms that Benford’s gets you.