Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:40:00 -
[181] - Quote
Oh you're just mad because Akita T has no evidence to support her theoretical math.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:45:00 -
[182] - Quote
So you don't dispute the easily verifiable small numbers, and you don't dispute the logic as to how it should apply to larger numbers, you are just flat out stating that it doesn't apply to larger numbers without any shred of proof to the contrary NOT EVEN a mention as to the exact point it stops being accurate ? Sounds like desperation to me. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Micheal Dietrich
Kings Gambit Black
580
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:49:00 -
[183] - Quote
Akita has about 6 pages of it actually, only problem is that Akita is talking to the mule. Sadly He is just as stubborn hence the 2 of you keep repeating the same thing over, and over, and over, and over
and over, and over, and over, and over |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:59:00 -
[184] - Quote
Akita T wrote:So you don't dispute the easily verifiable small numbers, and you don't dispute the logic as to how it should apply to larger numbers, you are just flat out stating that it doesn't apply to larger numbers without any shred of proof to the contrary NOT EVEN a mention as to the exact point it stops being accurate ? Sounds like desperation to me.
So... about that proof?
In the mean time I will be playing with this
It can roll 200 at once and so far I have not broken 13 in a row. It does bring up 10-12 every 1,000 or so flip as the math predicts, but in practice the groupings never grow to the 20-50 or above range. It is just not the nature of the beast in practice.
in Practice. ...you know? Reality? Practical application? That sort of "non-imaginary" stuff.
|
THE L0CK
Denying You Access
648
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:02:00 -
[185] - Quote
I give it 2 minutes before his ADD kicks in and he stops playing with the program and claims the theory is a failure again. Do you smell what the Lock's cooking? |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:04:00 -
[186] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote: 12 in a row would be expectable after about 245 sets of 200 and only almost certain after 2450. How many did you throw so far ? 13 in a row would be expectable about after 532 sets of 200 and only almost certain after 5320. You probably still have quite a way to go. 14 in a row would be expectable about after 1146 sets of 200 and only almost certain after 11460. You'll almost certainly get bored before that happens.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2098
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:05:00 -
[187] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Your Random Number Output Supports My Assertion
01011000 11100111 11010011 10011101 01110011 01000011 11000101 10001001 10011000 10110010 00111000 11110101 11010010 10000100 01111011 00111010 10100101 00011110 01001101 10000011 01000011 10001100 11110101 10000000 00111111 10001011 10111110 00100000 00101111 10110000 11001101 11011101 10010101 11011111 01111111 11010001 00100010 10000011 10100011 00101100 10101101 01100011 01100101 01000011 01101100 10000110 00111111 01101110 01011111 11010111 10000001 00101011 01010101 00011110 10001001 10010010 00111110 00011010 01110101 01110101 01000110 10110110 10111001 11011100
And that is what the output will always look like, regardless of how long you do it.
And yes, I was able to generate 0000 00000000 0000000 in a relatively small set.
My question to you is this: at what point does it become impossible? 20? 30? 50? 100? 1,000? 15,764? At some point you MUST draw an arbitrary line where you say "This number of consecutive heads is possible, but ONE MORE is impossible."
Do you understand now why your argument just doesn't work?
Eternum Praetorian wrote: If you can't prove it, but you still insist that it is 100% fact... then you practice bad science. Simple.
Prove it.
Proving that it's possible to get 1,000 repeated bits, or 10,000, or whatever number you think is the Magic Impossible Number, would require such a large set that I don't have the resources to produce such a large set of data and analyze it. I *have* demonstrated that the larger your sample set, the more likely you are to get large sets of bits like we're talking about. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:06:00 -
[188] - Quote
I have been playing with this thing for a long time and 14 is well withing the expected range of "randomness". It is the larger values that are in question and if you think otherwise the burden of proof is on you.
So about that proof?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:10:00 -
[189] - Quote
The "proof" is that after a set of X, you still have a 50% chance of getting the X+1th of the same type. So every time you DO encounter a streak of 12, there's a 50% chance the next throw would make it a 13-streak. And for every 13-streak, there's a 50% chance it will become a 14-streak. And so on and so forth.
Do I have to explain to you why 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4 and so on and so forth too ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2098
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:12:00 -
[190] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:I have been playing with this thing for a long time and 14 is well withing the expected range of "randomness". It is the larger values that are in question and if you think otherwise the burden of proof is on you.
So about that proof?
Before we even talk about proof, what's your Magic Impossible Number?
Also, you speak of science. Science is all about predictions. We've established a verifiable pattern of behavior: the larger the sample set, the larger the strings of consecutive bits. I documented actual samples for you and Akita gave you the math for how to predict the outcomes. As we have been able to demonstrate this
Relativity hasn't been proven yet, but every test thrown at it supports the theory. That theory is accepted by science to the point that refuting it will get the response of "prove it" from the vast majority of scientists. The burden of proof isn't on them, they have a mountain of supporting evidence.
The same goes here: every test so far supports *our* assertion. You're the one going against science. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
|
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:13:00 -
[191] - Quote
Akita T wrote:The "proof" is that after a set of X, you still have a 50% chance of getting the X+1th of the same type. So every time you DO encounter a streak of 12, there's a 50% chance the next throw would make it a 13-streak. And for every 13-streak, there's a 50% chance it will become a 14-streak. And so on and so forth.
Do I have to explain to you why 1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4 and so on and so forth too ?
You are not taking all of the variables into account is all and I will discuss this when I make my certain to be megathreadnaught regarding the pseudoscience of statistics.
|
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:16:00 -
[192] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Before we even talk about proof, what's your Magic Impossible Number?
Also, you speak of science. Science is all about predictions. We've established a verifiable pattern of behavior: the larger the sample set, the larger the strings of consecutive bits. I documented actual samples for you and Akita gave you the math for how to predict the outcomes.
You have supplied nothing. You have no evidence so far that suggests that any value greater then 20 can be generated let alone 100. Do you have anything? I have lots of evidence to the contrary because I have been flipping coins my entire life and I know how they actually behave.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:16:00 -
[193] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:You are not taking all of the variables into account The only variable is the number of expected heads or tails, N. The answer is N*(2^N) throws for a good chance of throwing N heads or N tails, and 10*N*(2^N) for almost certainly getting a streak of N heads or N tails. There are no other variables.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2098
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:18:00 -
[194] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:You have supplied nothing. You have no evidence so far that suggests that any value greater then 20 can be generated let alone 100. Do you have anything? I have lots of evidence to the contrary because I have been flipping coins my entire life and I know how they actually behave.
WHAT IS THE MAGIC NUMBER?
This discussion can't proceed until you name the lowest impossible number. I want you to tell me what number of heads is impossible. That will dictate the sample size and provide a goal. Without you stating a specific number, no matter how large a group I produce, you can always simply say "Yeah you got 102, but you'll never get 1,000." So what is it? The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:19:00 -
[195] - Quote
Fine now prove your hypothesis with some reference please. That is reasonable enough is it not?
|
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:20:00 -
[196] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:You have supplied nothing. You have no evidence so far that suggests that any value greater then 20 can be generated let alone 100. Do you have anything? I have lots of evidence to the contrary because I have been flipping coins my entire life and I know how they actually behave. WHAT IS THE MAGIC NUMBER? This discussion can't proceed until you name the lowest impossible number. That will dictate the sample size and provide a goal. Without you stating a specific number, no matter how large a group I produce, you can always simply say "Yeah you got 102, but you'll never get 1,000." So what is it?
Well that is true. But you have failed to produce evidence of a sufficiently large number (such as 100) to justify the discussion of being able to randomly reach 10,000 or 10 billion in a row. So the burden of proof... is... on YOU. Duh?
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:22:00 -
[197] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:You have supplied nothing. You have no evidence so far that suggests that any value greater then 20 can be generated let alone 100. Do you have anything? I have lots of evidence to the contrary because I have been flipping coins my entire life and I know how they actually behave. 20*2^20 = 20,971,520. Have you really flipped coins nearly 21 million times in your entire life ? Assuming a coin flip takes about 3 seconds on average, that's nearly TWO WHOLE YEARS needed, just to have a DECENT chance of flipping 20 heads in a row. Add in work and sleep, and that's SIX YEARS of your life spent throwing coins in your free time. And make that SIXTY years of spending all your free time flipping coins to be almost certain to get 20 heads or tails in a row. Your personal experience is irrelevant for anything even approaching 20 heads or tails in a row. You simply do not have enough time to actually see that.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2098
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:23:00 -
[198] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Well that is true. But you have failed to produce evidence of a sufficiently large number (such as 100) to justify the discussion of being able to randomly reach 10,000 or 10 billion in a row. So the burden of proof... is... on YOU. Duh?
Right then. You refuse to make a verifiable claim, therefore we have nothing to test. Like I said before, I could show you a hundred or a thousand or a million and you could forever +1 it, claiming the next number is impossible. Until you give us a definitive test to perform, there is no way to proceed.
As soon as you will plainly state the lowest impossible number of consecutive heads (or the highest possible, your choice) then we can think about how to design a test to see who is right. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:24:00 -
[199] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:You have supplied nothing. You have no evidence so far that suggests that any value greater then 20 can be generated let alone 100. Do you have anything? I have lots of evidence to the contrary because I have been flipping coins my entire life and I know how they actually behave. 20*2^20 = 20,971,520. Have you really flipped coins nearly 21 million times in your entire life ? Assuming a coin flip takes about 3 seconds on average, that's nearly TWO WHOLE YEARS needed, just to have a DECENT chance of flipping 20 heads in a row. Add in work and sleep, and that's SIX YEARS of your life spent throwing coins in your free time. And make that SIXTY years of spending all your free time flipping coins to be almost certain to get 20 heads or tails in a row. Your personal experience is irrelevant for anything even approaching 20 heads or tails in a row. You simply do not have enough time to actually see that.
Ok so a computer can do that pretty easily then? Has it been done to your knowledge? Because I know of no such experiment?
|
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:26:00 -
[200] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Well that is true. But you have failed to produce evidence of a sufficiently large number (such as 100) to justify the discussion of being able to randomly reach 10,000 or 10 billion in a row. So the burden of proof... is... on YOU. Duh? Right then.
No we start with 100... nice dodge though.
If you can present such information then we would have something to discuss then wouldn't we? Give me a break, this is not debate this is the scientific method. Don't be so adolescent. Assume 100 and go. Disprove eternum's theory and assert your own with facts...
This is how things get done.
|
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2098
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:27:00 -
[201] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:No we start with 100
Progress!
So 100 is impossible? What about 99? Is 99 possible?
I want you to plainly state where you draw the line. One number is possible in a truly random system, and the next isn't. Or else you aren't making a claim that can be verified scientifically, while ours is supported by the limited sample sets we have generated so far. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:30:00 -
[202] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:No we start with 100 Progress! So 100 is impossible? What about 99? Is 99 possible?
More games I see... and no evidence.
I don't know, the burden of proof is on you after all. You should tell me... but you will need some hard evidence or it is all just theoretical.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:30:00 -
[203] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Ok so a computer can do that pretty easily then? 20 in a row ? Pretty easy on a computer checking that.
Quote:Has it been done to your knowledge? Because I know of no such experiment? I'm fairly sure somebody DID do that at some point in time, but doing that experimentally is pointless, because we already know the likely results. The experiment would have a minimal impact on the science community and thus be wholly unremarkable. It would be a miracle if you WOULD have heard of it.
Quote: More to the fact we would be looking more to the 50-100 range and greater. 5, 10, 20, 100, 1 billion, it doesn't matter. The laws of probability don't suddenly change after a certain number. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:32:00 -
[204] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:Ok so a computer can do that pretty easily then? 20 in a row ? Pretty easy on a computer checking that. Quote:Has it been done to your knowledge? Because I know of no such experiment? I'm fairly sure somebody DID do that at some point in time, but doing that experimentally is pointless, because we already know the likely results. The experiment would have a minimal impact on the science community and thus be wholly unremarkable. It would be a miracle if you WOULD have heard of it.
Ah I see... we are just right and we know it. Behold the math religion in all of it's glory.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:35:00 -
[205] - Quote
So write your own routine then, and check 210 million random bits to see that you actually DO get several 19 in a row and almost certainly at least one 20 in a row (possibly even a 21 in a row, maybe even 22 in a row or with a so-so chance a 23 in a row). Or do you want ME to write it ? Would you run an EXE I send you ? http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2098
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:35:00 -
[206] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:No we start with 100 Progress! So 100 is impossible? What about 99? Is 99 possible? More games I see... and no evidence. I don't know, the burden of proof is on you after all. You should tell me... but you will need some hard evidence or it is all just theoretical.
We know that I've been able to generate 20.
So let's say I've just flipped 20 heads in a row. You'll admit that is possible. What are the odds that the next toss will be heads? 50/50. What's stopping that coin from landing on heads again? Randomness suggests that half the time I flip 20, I should get 21.
Half the time I flip 21, I should get 22.
Half the time I flip 22, I should get 23.
Half the time I flip 23, I should get 24.
Half the time I flip 24, I should get 25.
Do you disagree? If so, why? And where does it break down?
You're making a claim. Your claim is that at some point, the 50/50 coin flip ceases to be 50/50 and it is IMPOSSIBLE for that coin to land on heads again. I want to know where that is. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:39:00 -
[207] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:[
You're making a claim. Your claim is that at some point, the 50/50 coin flip ceases to be 50/50 and it is IMPOSSIBLE for that coin to land on heads again. I want to know where that is.
No sir you are clearly making a claim. You say given endless amounts of time you can flip 10 billion billion billion heads in a row... that is your claim and your burden of proof. Not mine.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:41:00 -
[208] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:No sir you are clearly making a claim. You say given endless amounts of time you can flip 10 billion billion billion heads in a row... that is your claim and your burden of proof. Not mine. Given 100 throws, you CAN flip 100 heads. It's just improbable. No proof needed there. Given 10 billion billion billion throws, you CAN flip 10 billion billion billion heads in a row. It's just insanely improbable. Not impossible, but so unlikely it boggles the mind. No proof needed there either.
With each additional throw, that improbability decreases. At some point, you reach a place where the improbable becomes probable, and at an even later point, the probable becomes ALMOST unavoidable. No proof needed there either. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Eternum Praetorian
True Creation
831
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:46:00 -
[209] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Eternum Praetorian wrote:No sir you are clearly making a claim. You say given endless amounts of time you can flip 10 billion billion billion heads in a row... that is your claim and your burden of proof. Not mine. Given 100 throws, you CAN flip 100 heads. It's just improbable. No proof needed there. Given 10 billion billion billion throws, you CAN flip 10 billion billion billion heads in a row. It's just insanely improbable. Not impossible, but so unlikely it boggles the mind. No proof needed there either. With each additional throw, that improbability decreases. At some point, you reach a place where the improbable becomes probable, and at an even later point, the probable becomes ALMOST unavoidable. No proof needed there either.
You always need proof akita, that is just life. You make a theory and you have to prove it. Yes, it is possible but that does not mean that is the inevitable outcome. That is what I mean when I say that you are not factoring in all the variables, and it is a failure of statistical theory not math in general.
But regardless... you have to prove it. You or everyone else in the world or it is not a fact. Period. It is just a theory.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1202
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:47:00 -
[210] - Quote
It's really simple. Let's take N=10 to be a streak length you can't possibly deny it's impossible, because you have gotten it yourself quite a few times.
Whenever you get a streak of heads of length N=10, you have a 50% chance to throw an extra head. For every 2 streaks of 10 heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of 11 heads. For every 2 streaks of 11 heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of 12 heads.
For every 2 streaks of N heads, ON AVERAGE, you will also get a single streak of N+1 heads. That is always valid, REGARDLESS of the value of N.
There's your impossible to refute logical proof up to any value of N. If you want a practical proof, you have to restrict yourself to values of N that could realistically be attained in a reasonable amount of time.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |