Moderated Coin Flipper

[Leumas]

We can predict the approximate results with known confidence,

i.e. Gambling a guess on a random outcome.
i.e. Random ⇔ indeterministic

or state how many coin tosses we would need to better an arbitrary confidence and accuracy.

i.e. Guessing with a chance of getting it wrong...
i.e. Random ⇔ indeterministic

or state how many coin tosses we would need to better an arbitrary confidence and accuracy.

Come on then... what number of coin tosses will give you 50% heads at 0% error and confidence of 100%?

That is arbitrary is it not... come on... what is N?

And when you take this to actual physical systems relying on very large numbers, say pressure gauges, or even computer circuitry, we have very good accuracy as percentages.

So what you are saying is that we made a pressure gauge that calculates the probability of ... what?

And are you comparing the Quantum tunneling effects in a transistor to coin tossing?

• Ok how many atoms are there in a mole of gas (6.022×10²³)? And how many moles are needed for 1millibar? At what Temperature? How does this relate in any possible way to coin tossing?
  
  
• How many electrons pass through a transistor with 1 milliamp current? 6.24 x 10¹⁵ electrons A SECOND. Are you going to toss that many coins A SECOND as there are electrons passing through a transistor A SECOND? And you do know that current is a magnetic field propagating at the speed of light not electrons tallying up heads or tails... right?

So how exactly does comparing coin tosses relate in any possible construing of physics to electric currents through transistors?

And how does tossing coins relate to the pressure gauge exactly?? Does a pressure gauge tally up the atoms punching it on the right side instead of the left side or what exactly??

 

[Leumas]

See, Leumas? jimbob can do it, too.

Yes I saw... neither of you did "it"... I am still waiting for the actual function and what value of n "it" will give for p=1 and ε=0... so what is this "it, too" exactly?

 

[jimbob]

What part of "approximate" don't you understand? Arbitrary precision and confidence for a large enough set of numbers.

Your definition of random would require you to define pressure gauges as providing random readings. As opposed to readings that can be predicted by knowing the volume, the composition of the vapours and the temperature.

 

[jsfisher]

What part of "approximate" don't you understand? Arbitrary precision and confidence for a large enough set of numbers.

Your definition of random would require you to define pressure gauges as providing random readings. As opposed to readings that can be predicted by knowing the volume, the composition of the vapours and the temperature.

I believe his ignorance is willful. It pairs nicely with his lifetime supply of straw men.

 

[jimbob]

In the post I have spoilered below (for ease of reading) you seem to be arguing that because very large numbers of molecules or electrons are involved in gases in pressure gauges or silicon chips, that somehow those are not random, whilst also seeming to say that you cannot predict the overall outcome of large numbers of coin flips because you'd need infinite numbers of flips.

Which highlights why I say your definition is so broad as to be useless. It seems to shift in the same post.

i.e. Gambling a guess on a random outcome.
i.e. Random ⇔ indeterministic




i.e. Guessing with a chance of getting it wrong...
i.e. Random ⇔ indeterministic





Come on then... what number of coin tosses will give you 50% heads at 0% error and confidence of 100%?

That is arbitrary is it not... come on... what is N?





So what you are saying is that we made a pressure gauge that calculates the probability of ... what?

And are you comparing the Quantum tunneling effects in a transistor to coin tossing?

• Ok how many atoms are there in a mole of gas (6.022×10²³)? And how many moles are needed for 1millibar? At what Temperature? How does this relate in any possible way to coin tossing?
  
  
• How many electrons pass through a transistor with 1 milliamp current? 6.24 x 10¹⁵ electrons A SECOND. Are you going to toss that many coins A SECOND as there are electrons passing through a transistor A SECOND? And you do know that current is a magnetic field propagating at the speed of light not electrons tallying up heads or tails... right?

So how exactly does comparing coin tosses relate in any possible construing of physics to electric currents through transistors?

And how does tossing coins relate to the pressure gauge exactly?? Does a pressure gauge tally up the atoms punching it on the right side instead of the left side or what exactly??

 

[jsfisher]

Leumas is so good at coming up with questions, let me counter with these:

If I were to predict that the length of a Subway foot-long sub was 11 inches, would that qualify as approximately correct?

Or would you argue 11 inches is too far from 12 inches to be considered approximately correct? (It is within 10%, though. Would 5% be better?)

Then again, since Subway foot-long subs really are only about 11 inches in length,would my prediction of 11 inches by approximately correct?

On the other hand, the whole process of making the Subway foot-long sub rolls does have its variations and therefore the rolls come in ever-so slightly different lengths, is my 11-inch prediction not approximately correct?

And so on, leaving us with the underlying question, can you predict the approximate length of a Subway foot-long sub?

 

[theprestige]

Leumas is so good at coming up with questions, let me counter with these:

If I were to predict that the length of a Subway foot-long sub was 11 inches, would that qualify as approximately correct?

Or would you argue 11 inches is too far from 12 inches to be considered approximately correct? (It is within 10%, though. Would 5% be better?)

Then again, since Subway foot-long subs really are only about 11 inches in length,would my prediction of 11 inches by approximately correct?

On the other hand, the whole process of making the Subway foot-long sub rolls does have its variations and therefore the rolls come in ever-so slightly different lengths, is my 11-inch prediction not approximately correct?

And so on, leaving us with the underlying question, can you predict the approximate length of a Subway foot-long sub?

Just wait until you start predicting the dimensions of dimensional lumber.

 

[jimbob]

Yes thermal.... WELL DONE... it is random because the deck is shuffled.

Well done.

So when one objects that because I am using a PRNG to select "cards" from the TRNG file and thus this makes it deterministic he is utterly wrong.

And that is why I did the analogy to the deck of cards.

So thanks for being the only one who has managed to actually answer the question

Choosing a "card" from a shuffled "deck of cards" results in a RANDOM... "entirely random" as you said... thanks.... card and has nothing to do with whether the picking process is random or not.

So in other words using a PRNG to pick a "card" from a "deck of cards" does not make the selected card not "entirely random". You got it...well done.

Or speaking about the file of TRNG data (deck of cards)... when shuffled... and then a RANDOM "CUT" is done and from that cut then one Number (card) is chosen.... its Value (color) being "red" or "black" is RANDOM "entirely random".

And the baseless concern about the PRNG being used to pick data from a TRNG making the process deterministic is ENTIRELY BASELESS... since it is "ENTIRELY RANDOM".... QED!!!


THANKS for being the only one in this whole thread who answered the question.... and correctly at that...

The highlighted is where you are wrong.

You took a set of data that we agree is random as it was generated by some form of electrical noise, and thermal electrical noise is truly random.

You took a subset of that data (fair enough, still random)

You then used this for all subsequent runs. Which defeats the purpose of using it as from this point on, your outputs are determined solely by the inputs you put in. From this point on, the you are at best using pseudo-random data. The clue is in the "pseudo" prefix.


You are not shuffling the cards anymore. You have shuffled the cards and turned them face up, and are now running a non-random but pseudorandom process to pick each card in the coin flips.


The writers of the pseudorandom number generation algorithm will specify the inputs that are used to provide their seed values. One could write a variation that, as well as generating the pseudorandom numbers also outputted the values of the seed inputs. If you used such an algorithm that told you what the seed values had been used, would you say its output was random, given that you could repeat it as many times as you wanted with the same seed values and get identical results?

Just because the implementation you chose didn't provide that additional information, it doesn't magically turn that into a random process. The seed values are still the same. It needn't be within your program, it could be some other program that interrogates the status of the inputs used for the PRNG at the moment of generation.


You are using a repeatable, deterministic procedure, to try to make a somewhat eccentric experimental investigation into something that has been known for over three centuries.

 

[Leumas]

In the post I have spoilered below (for ease of reading) you seem to be arguing

Only seems so to YOU... you are wrong... I think it stems from not reading carefully what I am saying and injecting into what you read stuff that is not there... I have no idea why??? You have done that several times now

I don't say that nor have I ever said that.

What I say is that you cannot compare the ENERGY randomness of ATOMIC LEVEL stuff to a WHOLE COIN being tossed.

Atomic level energy level fluctuations is what causes randomness in the movement of air ATOMS... and Electromagnetic WAVES/FILEDS are what propagates in a conductor at the speed of light... and ELECTRON QUANTOM TUNNILING is what is going in a Transistor.

To compare the ATOMIC QUANTUM ENERGY FIELDS level of randomness to a WHOLE COIN being tossed is to say the least

And as you say... only stems from

... a fundamental misunderstanding of what randomness [and physics altogether] actually is

 

[Leumas]

The highlighted is where you are wrong.

Nope... it is where YOU are wrong... because of not reading my posts properly and not reading neither my description of the algorithm nor the hacked code of it.... and because of

... a fundamental misunderstanding of what randomness actually is

 

[Leumas]

And so on, leaving us with the underlying question, can you predict the approximate length of a Subway foot-long sub?

Only when I compare it to my personal standard... I can then GUESSTIMATE how many inches it is shorter by to an elevated confidence level.

 

[Leumas]

I believe his ignorance is willful. It pairs nicely with his lifetime supply of straw men.

Coming from you that is high praise indeed... thanks for that... QED!!!

 

[jsfisher]

And so on, leaving us with the underlying question, can you predict the approximate length of a Subway foot-long sub?

Only when I compare it to my personal standard... I can then GUESSTIMATE how many inches it is shorter by to an elevated confidence level.

There is an innuendo in your statement about penis length. That subject interests me not at all. Be that as it may, though, you were entirely unresponsive to my query.

 

[jsfisher]

Only seems so to YOU... you are wrong...

Oh, Jimbob is not alone in his assessment of your post....and he is not wrong.

 

[Leumas]

Oh, Jimbob is not alone in his assessment of your post....and he is not wrong.

Nah... he is arrantly and definitely wrong and so are you.

 

[Thermal]

There is an innuendo in your statement about penis length. That subject interests me not at all. Be that as it may, though, you were entirely unresponsive to my query.

But said penis may in fact have...

...no, I just can't.

 

[jsfisher]

Nah... he is arrantly and definitely wrong and so are you.

Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Jimbob was kind enough to provide particulars. He brought facts and evidence to the discussion. If you'd care to address his points, one at a time, we could continue the discussion. Mindlessly asserting "You are wrong" adds nothing other then validating the suspicion that that's all you have--baseless, mindless assertions.

 

[psionl0]

I have asked repeatedly for anyone to determine this

n = f(p,ε) for p=1 and ε=0
Which are the values necessary for the claim that a coin toss of n coins will result in a determinable guess of the number of heads with no random error.... i.e. deterministic.
​

So far not a single person has been able to do so... neither specify what f() is in the first place.... nor give a value for n.

Why would anybody do that? You know that limits (especially limits to infinity) don't work that way. X never equals the limiting value and Y is only "arbitrarily close" to the limit (whether it crosses the limit or not is irrelevant).

Nobody is claiming that with enough tosses, you will get exactly 50% heads. All we can say is that the average deviation from 50% can be made arbitrarily small if you have enough tosses.

 

[Leumas]

Why would anybody do that? You know that limits (especially limits to infinity) don't work that way. X never equals the limiting value and Y is only "arbitrarily close" to the limit (whether it crosses the limit or not is irrelevant).

Nobody is claiming that with enough tosses, you will get exactly 50% heads. All we can say is that the average deviation from 50% can be made arbitrarily small if you have enough tosses.

Is it random or does it become deterministic?

 

[jsfisher]

Is it random or does it become deterministic?

Not the question from the opening post. Please leave the goal posts in place.