Moderated Coin Flipper

[jt512]

***Begin Twilight Zone Theme***

In case it is not clear to you... baseless unproven accusations are nothing but SLANDER.

So prove your accusations or apologize... you will never do either.


Why all this tenacious and relentless CONCERN about the edge landing if as you clearly think randomness is not inherent in the natural world???

If randomness is not real then whether or not it is TRNG or PRNG or trinary or binary is all rendered pointless and moot in the first place.

So why all this CONCERN for the edge condition of what you evidently think is not a random event anyhow???

In any case... bare assertion and assumptions compounded with slander is the highest affirmation of my app's efficacy.... combined with your inability to ever use it to even try to see if the slander you hurled is not a pure lie.

Appreciate it... QED!!!


Note: By the way... all you need to prove how your slander is egregious lies is use the apps and test the results... or... better still make your own app and show how it is not inferior to mine.... hmmm... why don't you do either???

***End Twilight Zone Theme***

 

[psionl0]

Do all the testing of the outputs as you clearly know how... and PLEASE tell me if you spot any problems. From my own tests so far... I maintain that V2, and even V1 also, are as good as V3.

There is no need. I have seen the screenshots and the results are pretty much what you would expect whether the RNG used a formula or external noise.

Incidentally, this "landing on the edge" business seems to be getting quite heated. I don't know why. Before testing whether the next bit represents a H or T, just check if the next N bits are all zero. That would represent a probability of 1 / 2^N that the coin landed on the edge.

 

[Leumas]

There is no need. I have seen the screenshots and the results are pretty much what you would expect whether the RNG used a formula or external noise.

Thanks for doing that... you are an upstanding fellow!!!

Incidentally, this "landing on the edge" business seems to be getting quite heated. I don't know why.

Because of being CONCERNED that with testing like that which you did above, the results will indicate that the app is an excellent RNG and that is of great CONCERN of course.

So a RED HERRING [imgw=40]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128262c750038bf97.jpg[/imgw] is devised in order to remain CONCERNED.... by pretending to be so concerned about an edge landing being taken into account.

What is risibly ironic about all this is that randomness is not in any way impacted or affected by whether a binary RNG is used or not... especially when in real coin tossing an edge landing is extremely rare and also is discarded from the count in any case.... thus rendering the actual REAL TOSSING a binary random process because of the discarding of the edge landing.

Insisting that the edge landing be taken into account or else the app is invalid is a RED HERRING in order to be able to then not have to face the fact of randomness being inherent in the natural world.

Another red herring is this business of asymptotic convergence to 50-50 when large amounts of tossing is done.

And when while doing the tossing they get a 50-50 in one click they stop and declare Halleluiah ... there it is... which is a testimonial to the lack of understanding of the nature of a random coin tossing and the meaning of probability let alone probability distribution.

Not to mention that all they had to do is click one more time to see how the 50-50 is obliterated and even flipped over from the previous click.... and of course all this can be seen if only they actually bothered to use the app.

Nothing but a red herring.[imgw=40]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/5128262c750038bf97.jpg[/imgw]


ETA: all this avoiding to use the app reminds me of when I asked a flat earther to have a look at my iPad where I got him the NASA youtube live feed from the ISS cameras.... he literally refused to look at it... and then told me it is a HOAX... sounds familiar?

 

[jsfisher]

...
In case it is not clear to you... baseless unproven accusations are nothing but SLANDER.
...

Definitely not slander (capitalized or otherwise). Libel, perhaps, but then it would need to be damaging to your reputation and not simply an uncomfortable truth or a reasonable inference.

You were asked a simple question. You need not answer it, of course, but then we may interpret your silence in a light that you may find unfavorable.

(I know I have.)

 

[theprestige]

I've never met a good software developer that wasn't happy to describe the details of their implementation at the slightest sign of interest.

 

[jsfisher]

I've never met a good software developer that wasn't happy to describe the details of their implementation at the slightest sign of interest.

So true.

For what it is worth, what follows is the meat of Leumas' Coin Flipper 2. If you look closely, you may discover how the "edge case" is handled. There are also clues to Leumas' coding prowess.

      onmessage = function (e) {
         //console.log("Worker: Message received from main script", e.data[0]);
         let resultT = 0;
         let resultH = 0;
         let count = parseInt(e.data[0]);
         if (isNaN(count)) count = 1000;
         if (count > 10000000) count = 10000000;
         if (count < 10) count = 10;
         const myArray = new Int32Array(4);
         for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) {
            crypto.getRandomValues(myArray);
            const flip = myArray.reduce((a, b) => {
               return a + b;
            }, 0);
            if (flip > 0) resultH++;
            else if(flip<0) resultT++;
         }
         //console.log("Worker: Posting message back to main script", count);
         postMessage([resultH, resultT]);
      };

 

[Leumas]

Definitely not slander (capitalized or otherwise). Libel, perhaps, but then it would need to be damaging to your reputation and not simply an uncomfortable truth or a reasonable inference.

You were asked a simple question. You need not answer it, of course, but then we may interpret your silence in a light that you may find unfavorable.

(I know I have.)

Thanks... your interpretation is all I need to say... QED!!!

 

[Olmstead]

"No, I will not implement an edge landing, because it is completely irrelevant to the purpose of my app. It would also require a complex physics engine, and probably a physics engine beyond current capabilities if one wanted it to be accurate."

So much carnage could have been avoided.

 

[bobdroege7]

Yes... I was not talking about you... I was talking about the ones who deny science and facts of reality (see this thread).





There is a whole thread debating this... start with this post which addresses precisely the above point.... but also read the rest of the thread.





Not I... SCIENCE did... for over a century now... have you heard of something called Quantum Mechanics... or Nuclear Fission... or Luminescence... etc. etc.... but... if you wish to discuss that please read this post in an old thread and then this post in the new thread all about the topic... you can either revive the old thread or add to the new thread.





Nope... you cannot.... see this post... and this post.... and of course read the rest of the thread.... start with this post because the thread is diverse.... but the topic of determinism pretty much starts there.





Yes it has.... read this post in that thread and the rest of it.






Well... read this post... it explains it succinctly and very well.





Yes...






This thread and Coin Clipper (V1, V2, V3) was in reply to this post in that thread I linked to many times above... so it is about the topic of randomness and indeterminism of the universe.

One more thing, you can make the ratio of heads to tails as close to 50-50 just by doing more and more coin flips, that indicates that the universe is deterministic.

Or you could argue that the universe is deterministic and I could argue that the universe is random.

We still wouldn't get anywhere.

 

[Leumas]

I've never met a good software developer that wasn't happy to describe the details of their implementation at the slightest sign of interest.

Only to peers s/he respects and wants to show off to.

 

[Leumas]

So true.

For what it is worth, what follows is the meat of Leumas' Coin Flipper 2. If you look closely, you may discover how the "edge case" is handled. There are also clues to Leumas' coding prowess.

Ah... so now you can see that the SLANDER was an egregious baseless lie???

Good... thanks.... and can you see now how ASSUMING things is not rational?

...but then we may interpret your silence in a light that you may find unfavorable.

(I know I have.)

Now that you hacked my code... clever by the way... and proven the SLANDER of jt512 is nothing but baseless egregious slander like when Flat Earthers accuse NASA of faking the ISS live feed... let's see if an apology is coming or not.

 

[Thermal]

Gonna go ahead and ask again: what are we talking about here?

The OP speaks only about a general probability outcome, and that it never hits exactly 50/50 even when flipping into the millions. That was disproven physically, although everyone knew that. Except the OP, who repeatedly asserted it would go over and under precise 50% but not land on it.

The discussion has bounced around to natural randomness to coding to god hawkers. I really truly don't get what the intent of the discussion is, and what are drifts and derails.

{ETA: oh, and lately the definitions and limitations of slander have become topical, as has the nature of agnosticism}

Is this a mathematical or philosophical question? Or is it reinventing the coding wheel to reproduce an app that has been around for decades in the free app store? Are we trying to resolve the philosophical question of natural randomness with simulator?

 

[jsfisher]

Ah... so now you can see that the SLANDER was an egregious baseless lie???

No. It was not slander, nor was the statement baseless.

Now that you hacked my code... clever by the way...

You flatter me. I would consider ctrl-U neither hacking nor particularly clever.

and proven the SLANDER of jt512 is nothing but baseless egregious slander...

No, I did nothing of the kind. I do see, however, why you didn't disclose how you were modeling the so-called edge case. And now we can all make additional inferences about the reliability of your assertions.

let's see if an apology is coming or not.

Certainly neither jt512 nor I owe you any sort of apology. On the other hand, an apology from you would be appropriate but, as history has demonstrated, unlikely.

 

[theprestige]

"No, I will not implement an edge landing, because it is completely irrelevant to the purpose of my app. It would also require a complex physics engine, and probably a physics engine beyond current capabilities if one wanted it to be accurate."

So much carnage could have been avoided.

I told him as much on the first page. Got a perseveration of pusillanimous piffle for my trouble.

 

[theprestige]

Gonna go ahead and ask again: what are we talking about here?

The OP speaks only about a general probability outcome, and that it never hits exactly 50/50 even when flipping into the millions. That was disproven physically, although everyone knew that. Except the OP, who repeatedly asserted it would go over and under precise 50% but not land on it.

The discussion has bounced around to natural randomness to coding to god hawkers. I really truly don't get what the intent of the discussion is, and what are drifts and derails.

{ETA: oh, and lately the definitions and limitations of slander have become topical, as has the nature of agnosticism}

Is this a mathematical or philosophical question? Or is it reinventing the coding wheel to reproduce an app that has been around for decades in the free app store? Are we trying to resolve the philosophical question of natural randomness with simulator?

The point of the OP was to falsify the claim that coin tosses will approximate 50/50 distribution over several runs... by proving that claim while attempting (and failing) to falsify the strawman claim that coin tosses will exactly match 50/50 distribution.

 

[Leumas]

... Leumas' Coin Flipper 2. If you look closely, you may discover how the "edge case" is handled....

No. It was not slander, nor was the statement baseless.

Yes it was clear slander and you proved it.... your denial of your own proof is all I need to say QED!!!

In case it isn't clear to anyone by this point, Leumas's version 2 does not allow for the possibility of an edge-landing, as he claimed.

...but then we may interpret your silence in a light that you may find unfavorable.

(I know I have.)

 

[Leumas]

In case it isn't clear to anyone by this point, Leumas's version 2 does not allow for the possibility of an edge-landing, as he claimed.

Gonna go ahead and ask again: what are we talking about here?...

Certainly neither jt512 nor I owe you any sort of apology. On the other hand, an apology from you would be appropriate but, as history has demonstrated, unlikely.

I told him as much on the first page. Got a perseveration of pusillanimous piffle for my trouble.

The point of the OP was to falsify the claim that coin tosses will approximate 50/50 distribution over several runs... by proving that claim while attempting (and failing) to falsify the strawman claim that coin tosses will exactly match 50/50 distribution.

You have such very high standards of proof. I am in awe.

I am especially in awe of your ability to completely disregard the simple meaning of words in leaping to your breathtaking conclusions.

Pretty much any definition of slander includes a requirement for the statement being false and damaging to the reputation. Neither has been shown, so slander is not "clearly" shown.

Have you ever watched a comedy? Are you CONCERNED about it?

WOW.... what a lot of CONCERN!!!

QED!!!

 

[jsfisher]

Yes it was clear slander and you proved it.... your denial of your own proof is all I need to say QED!!!

You have such very high standards of proof. I am in awe.

I am especially in awe of your ability to completely disregard the simple meaning of words in leaping to your breathtaking conclusions.

 

[Thermal]

Yes it was clear slander and you proved it.... your denial of your own proof is all I need to say QED!!!

Pretty much any definition of slander includes a requirement for the statement being false and damaging to the reputation. Neither has been shown, so slander is not "clearly" shown.

 

[Thermal]

WOW.... what a lot of CONCERN!!!

QED!!!

Have you ever watched a comedy? Are you CONCERNED about it?