Moderated Coin Flipper

[Leumas]

My contempt is directed at your coding and grasp of basic statistics and inability to learn. A few people here have attempted to educate you despite your hostile attitude.
Once again, your program demonstrates nothing other than weaknesses in your PRNGs.
I know little of you as a person, only your online persona.

The above post is ironically a perfect illustration of this post ... and a vivid demonstration of this post... and hilariously of this one too.

And here is more evidence...

...
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.

 

[jsfisher]

The above post...

by Wudang refers to facts and reasoning presented throughout this thread. Leumas does not deal in facts and reasoning. Leumas deals in thesauruses and broad-brush insults to make his case.

Computer simulations do not produce empirical data.
Random number generation algorithms have their limitations, some severe.
The word is 'libel', not 'slander'.

Anyone who claims otherwise would be lying.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Anyone who claims otherwise would be lying.

Not necessarily .. he could also be simply wrong.

 

[Leumas]

by Wudang refers to facts and reasoning presented throughout this thread. Leumas does not deal in facts and reasoning. Leumas deals in thesauruses and broad-brush insults to make his case.

Computer simulations do not produce empirical data.
Random number generation algorithms have their limitations, some severe.
The word is 'libel', not 'slander'.

Anyone who claims otherwise would be lying.

Incessantly and indefatigably repeating your errors will not ever make them right... but thanks for yet another demonstration of... well QED!!!

 

[Leumas]

Not necessarily .. he could also be simply wrong.

Yes.... of course.... but unfortunately for you and the rest of the "us"... in this case the wrong is your baseless bare assertions of FAITH in misconstrued (by you) mathematical formulas that you clearly do not understand as evinced by Empirical Data that you have so far done all you could muster to detract with slander and malignment but nary a shred of facts.

 

[jsfisher]

Incessantly and indefatigably repeating your errors will not ever make them right... but thanks for yet another demonstration of... well QED!!!

So you say, but you never advance beyond just an unsupported empty claim. Please, tell us the error(s) in each of the following:

1. Computer simulations do not produce empirical data.
2. Random number generation algorithms have their limitations, some severe.
3. The word is 'libel', not 'slander'. (And just to avoid any sort of stupid word quibbles, the reference to 'slander' is to how Leumas has (mis-)used the word throughout this thread.)

 

[Dr.Sid]

Yes.... of course.... but unfortunately for you and the rest of the "us"... in this case the wrong is your baseless bare assertions of FAITH in misconstrued (by you) mathematical formulas that you clearly do not understand as evinced by Empirical Data that you have so far done all you could muster to detract with slander and malignment but nary a shred of facts.

It looks like English but I don't understand. I mean I do understand the words .. but not the point. Are you asking something ? Are you claiming something I claimed is wrong ? If so, what exactly ?
Are you maybe a poet ? You certainly have very rich vocabulary.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Thanks for admitting that... QED!!!

Admitting what?

When I write "we both", that means you and I. Changing it to "I" isn't a clever retort. It's like if I said, "you and I know what will happen", and you respond "and you know it, too!". Aside from the fact that you had to alter my text to make it "agree" with you, your statement makes no sense. If I say "we", then obviously I'm including myself.

Or are you really saying that you have no clue what will happen if you submit a list of posts that you believe to be libelous against you to the mods?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Empirical Experimentation

No, it's not. Here's the thing that you obviously can't grasp: random number generators are not random. That's why they are more properly called pseudo random number generators. They use an algorithm to deterministically produce a result that is not easily predicted by an observer, so that it seems random. But because of the fact that it's an algorithm, it will eventually repeat, in a non random cycle. That's why you haven't actually produced any scientifically valid results with you "experiment".

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not necessarily .. he could also be simply wrong.

But what about Leumas' Trilemma?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes.... of course.... but unfortunately for you and the rest of the "us"... in this case the wrong is your baseless bare assertions of FAITH in misconstrued (by you) mathematical formulas that you clearly do not understand as evinced by Empirical Data that you have so far done all you could muster to detract with slander and malignment but nary a shred of facts.

Again, why haven't you submitted your findings to any mathematical journals? If your "empirical experimentation" does what you claim, you should be world famous, especially considering you'd be overturning basically all of science, since statistical analysis is used in pretty much every field.

I mean, it's not like they'd laugh at you.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Again, why haven't you submitted your findings to any mathematical journals? If your "empirical experimentation" does what you claim, you should be world famous, especially considering you'd be overturning basically all of science, since statistical analysis is used in pretty much every field.

I mean, it's not like they'd laugh at you.

Wait, you know what he claims ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Wait, you know what he claims ?

Only so far as he's claimed that his "empirical experimentation", conducted using a toy app, somehow liquidates, annihilates and eradicates our "faith" in statistical analysis.

 

[sarge]

Stop the incivilities. This thread (about randomness and the app described in the OP) is in Computers and the Internet. That virtually precludes discussion about religions or Ayn Rand. Please and thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: sarge

 

[Leumas]

Again, why haven't you submitted your findings to any mathematical journals? If your "empirical experimentation" does what you claim, you should be world famous, especially considering you'd be overturning basically all of science, since statistical analysis is used in pretty much every field.

I mean, it's not like they'd laugh at you.

Pointing out the reality of randomness to people who DENY it or declare being proudly and confidently gnostic about their agnosticism of randomness is not a novelty that warrants publication in journals of any kind... despite you thinking it is out of your

... fundamental misunderstanding of what randomness actually is

Rather what warrants publications in journals... not mathematics ones... is denying randomness as inherent in the natural world and misconstruing and misunderstanding probability distributions while pontificating about them... all in the name of carrying on blindly and baselessly bare asserting determinism.

Another phenomenon that also needs to be published in casuistry journals is refusing to read stuff that one then proceeds to fabricate strawmen out of in order or devise mephitic red herrings to waft about.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Pointing out the reality of randomness to people who DENY it or declare being proudly and confidently gnostic about their agnosticism of randomness is not a novelty that warrants publication in journals of any kind... despite you thinking it is out of your

But this isn't us saying so. This isn't our "faith". We're just pointing out what the overwhelming scientific consensus is.

• Your app isn't "empirical experimentation" because it isn't actually random. It uses an algorithm that is completely deterministic. You might get the occasional actually random result caused by a bit flip induced by a cosmic ray particle, but barring that slim possibility, if you run the same algorithm from the same initial starting condition on two different computers you'll get the same sequence of numbers from both. That is not a random sequence of numbers - it's pseudo random, and therefore not scientifically valid for a study of random events.

• The overwhelming scientific consensus is that the results of a sequence of random events with two equally possible outcomes will get closer and closer to 50/50 the more you repeat the event.

• There is a difference between the numerical difference and the ratio. As I said, you can record 1,000,000 more heads than tails, and still have the ratio be only 0.00001% more heads.

 

[Leumas]

But this isn't us saying so. This isn't our "faith". We're just pointing out what the overwhelming scientific consensus is.

Congratulations on your new appointment as the spokesman for the "us".

Here is just one example that rives your above claim....

I apologize for not being clearer. I'm affirmatively agnostic about randomness in nature. It's not that I don't have the knowledge. It's that I don't think the knowledge can be had. Not by me, not by you, not by anyone.

 

[theprestige]

Congratulations on your new appointment as the spokesman for the "us".

Here is just one example that rives your above claim....

I don't disagree with FZ's claim about the scientific consensus on that point.

The passage you quoted was not intended to mean what you seem to think it means. If that's what you think it means, it's either poor communication on my part, or misinterpretation on your part.

 

[jsfisher]

Congratulations on your new appointment as the spokesman for the "us".

Here is just one example that rives your above claim....

It is a very simple concept, Leumas. The word, us, is a plural pronoun used to refer to two or more individuals. In context, the 'us' would exclude you, but in no way can you properly construe it to be everyone other than you nor even everyone participating in this thread other than you.

Foster Zygote needs just one other person besides himself to constitute an 'us'. It is obvious that there are more than one other such persons, just not necessarily all.

Moreover, making a correct observation about an unnamed group of not-you individuals in no way elevates Foster Zygote to be their spokesperson.


Leumas, your failure to understand simple words and concepts as well as your frequent misuse of your own words does not help in you being persuasive with an argument, were you to finally advance one.

 

[Leumas]

I don't disagree with FZ's claim about the scientific consensus on that point.

Yes you do most definitely disagree... backpaddling now is not going to erase your words that prove it.

I apologize for not being clearer. I'm affirmatively agnostic about randomness in nature. It's not that I don't have the knowledge. It's that I don't think the knowledge can be had. Not by me, not by you, not by anyone.

And neither will PRETENDING to have miscommunicated anything... you were very "affirmatively clear about it"...

The passage you quoted was not intended to mean what you seem to think it means. If that's what you think it means, it's either poor communication on my part, or misinterpretation on your part.

And QUOTING your own affirmations is not misrepresenting you...