Thermal
August Member
@Leumas: I didn't mean literally "you". I meant the generic/general you, or "one", or however you say it.
Moderated Coin Flipper
Ah... ok... thanks for the clarification.
I think it is indeed what jimbob thinks I was saying based on the fact that he did not read the whole post and just read the first two lines... just like he has not read my code and based his objection about it on a strawman version of it... drawn out of hearsay instead of reading the primary source being the code itself... or at the very least take what I said I did in the code that I wrote instead of what other people said about the code.
Then stating incorrectly that I "have a fundamental misunderstanding of randomness".... and repeating it multiple times.
And I am astounded that NONE have managed to answer the very clearly commonsense answers about the deck of cards.... you are the only one.... THANKS again for answering it.
You did admit that, because that is the inevitable conclusion from the below statement.
You are using a pseudo random number (ie not a random number) generator to perform a pseudo shuffle on the cards. That is (by definition) not a random shuffle of the cards but a deterministic rearrangement determined by the seed values.
How the seed values interact might be unknown to the designers of the algorithm, but what inputs are used for the seed values (mouse arrow x-y position, time, etc) are defined by the designers.
If someone noted the inputs that were used to generate the seed values, which the designers of the algorithm could have done as a separate small chunk of code, then the output would be the same if someone entered those values.
This is not random but pseudo random, the clue is in the prefix.
You are trying to use a deterministic process to perform an experiment to make claims about truly random processes. When, for the last three centuries, we have had binomial statistics about this very particular type of random process.
Moreover, your assertion "That is not just deterministic... it is not even random" implies a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between deterministic and random processes. If the same input always produces the same output, that's deterministic; if the same input does not always produce the same output, that's random. You're seeming to imply that one is a subset of the other.
Your conclusions are wrong.
(1) You still have not answered the questions about the card scenario in this post nor this one.... why?
(2) Your above statements demonstrate that YOU are the one whose statements "imply a deep misunderstanding of the relationship between deterministic and random processes" and what PRNGs are.
(3) Who is this someone who is going to know what cannot be known?
(4) If someone found Pixie Dust one would prove Pixie Fairies.... until then Pixie fairies are a myth... same as this "someone" who is going to know what cannot be known.
(5) Random ⇔ indeterministic... you seem to deny that??
(6) PLEASE answer the questions below... you have not answered them even once... why?
Last edited:
Some more riving of "convergence"
The new Coin Flipper V4.1 really is a great improvement that enables the utter and total riving to smithereens of any notions of "convergence" of a coin toss.
I used it with lots of patience to obtain the Running data for 1,000 runs of 10,000,000 flips/run in a PRNG mode.
It takes a lot of patience and finger stamina to get 1,000 runs but I was watching the new episode of Black List and had nothing better to do to entertain the other half of my brain... so...
Here have a look at the state of utter and total lack of any possibility of any construing of any iota of convergence even after 10 BILLION coin flips.
Myriad... I am still waiting for that n calculation... but irrefragably it is not 1010
ETA: an error of -0.0006% of 1010 flips is 60,000 heads too little... ain't a very good guess at all if one guessed exactly 50-50 is it.
The new Coin Flipper V4.1 really is a great improvement that enables the utter and total riving to smithereens of any notions of "convergence" of a coin toss.
I used it with lots of patience to obtain the Running data for 1,000 runs of 10,000,000 flips/run in a PRNG mode.
It takes a lot of patience and finger stamina to get 1,000 runs but I was watching the new episode of Black List and had nothing better to do to entertain the other half of my brain... so...
Here have a look at the state of utter and total lack of any possibility of any construing of any iota of convergence even after 10 BILLION coin flips.
Myriad... I am still waiting for that n calculation... but irrefragably it is not 1010
ETA: an error of -0.0006% of 1010 flips is 60,000 heads too little... ain't a very good guess at all if one guessed exactly 50-50 is it.
[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/PRNG_RunsData_10M.png[/IMGW]
[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/PRNG_RunningAverages_10M.png[/IMGW]
[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/PRNG_RunningAverages_10M_Zoomed.png[/IMGW]
[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/PRNG_RunningAverages_10M.png[/IMGW]
[IMGW=700]http://godisadeadbeatdad.com/CoinFlipperImages/PRNG_RunningAverages_10M_Zoomed.png[/IMGW]
Last edited:
So you cannot do it... I suspected that much... well get someone better than you at math to do it then... until someone does it ... a coin toss remains indeterministic and random and unpredictable no matter how many times you can humanly in the life of this universe do it.... QED!!!
Thanks for trying though...
I am still waiting... until then... a coin toss is indeterministic and will not "converge" as demonstrated by the EMPIRICAL DATA above for 10 BILLION coin tosses....
So what is this n... that will give a DETERMINISTIC p=1 and whatever ε you arbitrarily want?
I will grant an ε > 0 as arbitrary as you wish ... but p=1 is the only way you get determinism.
However if you want to say it converges to 50% then ε=0 must also be the case.
So what n will give p=1 and ε=0? For a deterministic convergence to 50-50.
Or... if you prefer
What n will give p=1 and ε > 0 but arbitrarily close to 0... but p=1 is the only way you can say for sure it is that ε >0 value.
Can you please calculate n... or get some math priest who can?
Until you can DETERMINE this n... the only thing we can go by is the EMPIRICAL DATA as illustrated in the above posts... which rive asunder any notion of "convergence" or deterministically so.
Any other argument without DETERMINING this 300 years old calculation of n... is just meaningless... WHAT IS n?... clearly 1010 is not it.
Until you can calculate n or demonstrate otherwise... QED!!!
Last edited:
Wudang
BOFH
Fire it up in chrome developer tools. You'll see his worker_XXXX scripts appear after each type of run. These use Math.random.
Ionically his code references https://github.com/nquinlan/better-random-numbers-for-javascript-mirror which has a decent article in Readme.MD about "Why Math.random should not be used for serious programming" linky
For a useful javascript book (free as in beer) try https://books.goalkicker.com/JavaScriptBook/ which is built from highest-rated items on Stackoverflow. I couldn't be bothered looking any deeper.
Ionically his code references https://github.com/nquinlan/better-random-numbers-for-javascript-mirror which has a decent article in Readme.MD about "Why Math.random should not be used for serious programming" linky
Code:
for (let i = 0; i < count; i++) {
if (Math.floor(Math.random() * edgeP) == 1) resultE++;
else if (Math.random() < 0.5) resultT++;
else resultH++;
}For a useful javascript book (free as in beer) try https://books.goalkicker.com/JavaScriptBook/ which is built from highest-rated items on Stackoverflow. I couldn't be bothered looking any deeper.
And round and round the Concern Circle goes...
Well ... all I have to do to prove you wrong is point to this post... not even mine.
You are proven arrantly wrong... QED!!!.
And... by the way coin tossing is NOT serious programming... unless one's faith depends on it of course... but in any case check out this post that demonstrates you arrantly wrong.
Last edited:
Wudang
BOFH
That's worker_Crypto. Here's TRNG
And now that you have hacked my code and can see what it can do... why don't you make an app that can prove mine inferior or ... better still... that can demonstrate how your superior RNG can prove the mythical wished upon DETERMINISTIC "convergence" to 50%???
Come on... you read the book... no??
So you should now be able to demonstrate your superior knowledge and superior RNG and prove once and for all that my app is claptrap and DEBUNK its EMPIRICAL DATA that rives asunder the mythical deterministic "convergence" wished upon.
Or better still ... can you specify the deterministic equation n=f(p,ε) mentioned in this post and use f(p,ε) to calculate n for p=1 and ε=0??
Myriad could not do it... can you?
EXCELLENT hacking powers... great... so now you yourself have debunked your statement in the previous post.
Well done... you yourself have helped me say again.... QED!!!
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
A good article, but its information dates from 2010. According to this article, in 2015 all the major browsers converged (see what I did there?) on a standard reference implementation for Math.random().
Whether the standardized implementation overcomes many or all the objections in the article you linked, I cannot say. Either way, though, I am inexpertly confident pushing its use beyond a few billion is ill-advised.
Then again, Leumas' application does help demonstrate the correctness of acbytesla's assertion in the opening post. The other things Leumas claims, not so much.
Ok... now that you have seen what I have described multiple times in multiple posts... so you are not doing any REVELATION here... but... maybe you would like to answer the questions in this post... only thermal so far did so and he got it totally RIGHT.
Let's see what you can do... no one else has but thermal.
Last edited:
I am sure you mean the assertion that is highlighted above.... no??
So what does APPROXIMATE mean here and what does PREDICT mean here???
Approximate does not mean deterministic does it?
Predict does not mean determine... it means GUESS so it is GAMBLING
So you can GAMBLE on ALMOST GUESSING a value for the 10,000 coin tosses???
And thus answering acbtesla's question... yes it is random chance and approximate guessing!
Ok... here are the results for 10,000 coin tosses using the PRNG and the TRNG and the Crypto RNG.
Don't open the spoiler and try to PREDICT THE APPROXIMATE results... see for yourself how WRONG you are.
So do you see how my app proves you wrong every single time? And thus QED!!!
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
No. You did not. You have been asked multiple times about your code, but you simply ignored the questions. "Not responding" is completely different from "describing".
Why should Wudang respond to those questions? On the one hand, your track record answering questions is, well, poor, and on the other, how are your questions relevant to anything Wudang has posted?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Yes.
These are common enough words. I'd think you already know what they mean. I could be wrong in that, though, since you have demonstrated difficulties with other simple words like slander and concern.
On the contrary, I did correctly predict the approximate results before peeking. It was easy to do.
Yes I did... many times... I did not say I gave the code at your command... I said I described the code... do you know the difference.
Here is just one time out of many that you can go rummage through the thread to see.... but one is all I need to prove you wrong... QED!!!
Wudang... just like jimbob... and you and others... is concerned about the Math.random() being used to shuffle and pick the "cards" from the "deck of cards".
So the questions are directly relevant to his concerns.
If only you and he and jimbob would answer those questions you might realize that your concerns are baseless. Because