• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Double Headed Coins and skepticism

Roboramma said:
We've never actually observed a black hole forming. So, no, we don't have direct observational evidence that a large enough mass star will form a black hole. We only have the consequences of very well tested theory.
Click to expand...

Actually, I seem to have got that wrong: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/16/3068111.htm

But the point still remains, in fact it seems to me strengthened: we had only theory the suggest that this happens. The theory turned out to be true, but we didn't look at black holes and then figure out what they are. We looked at the consequences of a very robust theory, and it turns out that those consequences do in fact occur in the real world.
 
sol invictus said:
Nope - you live in our world too.

Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Apparently not.

In any case, I think it's safe to say that we understand each other's positions.

There's really no point in turning this thread into a merry-go-round, so I'll let y'all get on with things.
 
Piggy said:
I'll live in my world, y'all live in yours.
Click to expand...

The problem is we live in the same world. We just understand it.

I mean, look at Galileo. He theorized that an object that is moving would continue moving unless a force (not his terminology, wait for newton) was applied to it. But all my experience with objects shows that they don't continue moving. They, relatively quickly, come to rest unless a force is applied to maintain that movement.

You are free to live thinking that objects have a tendency to come to rest*, but I'm happy to understand the consequences of physics and mathematics and what they tell us about the world as it really is.

*Or any other intuitive view based on experience rather than rigorously tested science.
 
Theoretically, it's possible for someone to roll the same number on a hundred sided die 1,000 times in a row, by chance alone. But for all intents and purposes, that's an "impossible" result.
 
Could you please at least answer the question I asked about patterns in response to this:
Piggy said:
As a gambling man, I've dealt cards, rolled dice, and tossed coins enough to know how the patterns go down.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that you can predict what will happen beyond chance?
 
Malerin said:
Theoretically, it's possible for someone to roll the same number on a hundred sided die 1,000 times in a row, by chance alone. But for all intents and purposes, that's an "impossible" result.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't.

Again, all sequences of 1,000 results on that 100 sided die are equally likely (assuming for the moment that it's fair). Therefore an event just as improbable as the one you've declared impossible happens every time you roll the die 1,000 times.

Moreover, life isn't fair - and neither are supposedly random events in the real world.
 
I think we're still just arguing varying levels of possibility here. Piggy just seems to have considered 'same person wins the one in a billion weekly lotto every week of their life' just as unlikely as flipping 100 heads. Not even close. It's more along the lines of 'same person wins the one in a billion weekly lotto once or twice in their life.

Someone else can do the math, but if all 7 billion people on the planet started flipping tomorrow, a lucky 'winner' would flip 100 heads fairly quickly*.

(I was going to suggest using a computer to simulate the above, but Piggy likes real world scenarios.)

*Also, as I said in a previous post, it is way more likely, and would happen way sooner, if the people get to start over after every miss (tails) instead of after every 100 flips (which would be a true 100 in a row test).
 
Alan said:
Could you please at least answer the question I asked about patterns in response to this:

Does that mean that you can predict what will happen beyond chance?
Click to expand...

It means that I do not assume that idealizations trump observation. Mathematical models are always, to some extent, idealized... they've got some of the nubby bits of reality scrubbed off of them.

Trouble is, those nubby bits can sometimes be important.

What I observe is a world that has a level of variability and volatility which limits the range of "streaks" in dice rolling, coin tossing, and card picking if the conditions are not rigged.

A mathematical abstraction which describes a much simpler world than the one I live in does not, for me, trump that observation.

I don't know why the physics of this world prohibits very long streaks, but that's the way it is in practice.

I have no reason to believe that conditions will change no matter how many times we run the experiment of tossing a fair coin 100 times. I expect that in each case, we will observe streaks of much fewer than 100 tosses, even if we were to do it to the end of the universe.

In other words, I expect that reality will continue to operate as it always has, even if I don't understand exactly why it operates that way. And as far as I can see, that expection is not contradicted by any experimental evidence of any kind, and is in fact confirmed by all available experience.

It's a different way of looking at the world from the way you and some others are approaching it here, but I would literally bet my life on it.

ETA: I understand exactly what you all are saying... what I disagree with is the validity of approaching the problem from that angle in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Sol, I know you saw Malerin put quotes around "impossible" there, and read the first sentence you quoted again. You're just saying more succinctly what Malerin is trying to say.

S/he isn't saying the same thing that Piggy was I don't believe. I'm pretty sure Malerin is talking about the 'so very close to impossible that it might as well equal impossible' that I was talking about back on page 1. Piggy was flat out saying it's impossible with no quotes :) Which I covered in my previous post.
 
Piggy said:
I expect that in each case, we will observe streaks of much fewer than 100 tosses, even if we were to do it to the end of the universe.

It's a different way of looking at the world from the way you and some others are approaching it here, but I would literally bet my life on it.
Click to expand...


If you are assuming that if we had the ability to set up the experiment I described:

OnlyTellsTruths said:
Someone else can do the math, but if all 7 billion people on the planet started flipping tomorrow, a lucky 'winner' would flip 100 heads fairly quickly*.


*Also, as I said in a previous post, it is way more likely, and would happen way sooner, if the people get to start over after every miss (tails) instead of after every 100 flips (which would be a true 100 in a row test).
Click to expand...

You would lose that bet on your life in short order.
 
Piggy said:
I seriously doubt it. Unless I moved into mathworld, which I don't plan to do.
Click to expand...

Piggy start flipping and you will probably flip 10 in a row in less than 10 hours or so. Now just imagine if there were 7 billion more people flipping next to you.

That's a lot of people! Remember, it only takes 1.

ETA: (...and before the weighted flip argument gets brought up again, all 7 billion people were given a mechanical flipping device:))
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
ETA: I understand exactly what you all are saying... what I disagree with is the validity of approaching the problem from that angle in the first place.
Click to expand...

I don't think you do. If you did, you'd understand why what we are saying is completely consistent with what you've observed, and you'd also understand why you're wrong to believe that such streaks are impossible merely because you haven't observed one.

OnlyTellsTruths said:
Sol, I know you saw Malerin put quotes around "impossible" there, and read the first sentence you quoted again. You're just saying more succinctly what Malerin is trying to say.
Click to expand...

If so, I apologize to Malerin for misunderstanding her/his post.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Piggy start flipping and you will probably flip 10 in a row in less than 10 hours or so. Now just imagine if there were 7 billion more people flipping next to you.

That's a lot of people! Remember, it only takes 1.

ETA: (...and before the weighted flip argument gets brought up again, all 7 billion people were given a mechanical flipping device:))
Click to expand...

2^100 is about 10^30. 7 billion is less than 10^10. 10^30/10^10=10^20 is more than number of seconds old the universe is. So no, even 7 billion people wouldn't be likely to flip 100 tails in a row any time soon.

But that doesn't mean it's impossible - if it were, all sequences would be impossible and the world would dissolve into a puddle of illogic.

ETA - mechanical flipping devices also exhibit the effect I mentioned (unfair coin flips), and it has nothing to do with weighting. It has to do with angular momentum and the way we (or a similar mechanical device) flips the coin.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
I don't think you do. If you did, you'd understand why what we are saying is completely consistent with what you've observed, and you'd also understand why you're wrong to believe that such streaks are impossible merely because you haven't observed one.
Click to expand...

I would indeed be wrong to come to that conclusion on that basis.

Anyway, it's time for me to go to bed and let y'all get on with your discussion of statistics.

Good night, folks.
 
OnlyTellsTruths said:
Piggy start flipping and you will probably flip 10 in a row in less than 10 hours or so. Now just imagine if there were 7 billion more people flipping next to you.

That's a lot of people! Remember, it only takes 1.

ETA: (...and before the weighted flip argument gets brought up again, all 7 billion people were given a mechanical flipping device:))
Click to expand...

You might consider how many times coins have been flipped in the history of this world.

You might also consider that anyone just happening to start a streak that went on for any unusual length would be unlikely, due to inherent human curiosity, to stop flipping until the streak were broken.

You might further consider that a streak of 100 has not, as far as we know, been achieved, or even claimed.

Curious, that.

Anyhow, as I said, time for sleep. Have fun with your stats.
 
sol invictus said:
2^100 is about 10^30. 7 billion is less than 10^10. 10^30/10^10=10^20 is more than number of seconds old the universe is. So no, even 7 billion people wouldn't be likely to flip 100 tails in a row any time soon.

But that doesn't mean it's impossible - if it were, all sequences would be impossible and the world would dissolve into a puddle of illogic.

ETA - mechanical flipping devices also exhibit the effect I mentioned (unfair coin flips), and it has nothing to do with weighting. It has to do with angular momentum and the way we (or a similar mechanical device) flips the coin.
Click to expand...

Sol, correct me if I'm wrong but those are the numbers for starting over after every 100 flips. It would happen much sooner if the people start over after every miss (tails).

(Also, you didn't factor in the number of tries, thats just 1 try per person. How about an average of 1 try per second for the starting over after every flip version, and 1 try per minute for the starting over after every 100 flips version.)

As for the mechanical flipping device, this mechanical flipping device is way better than the one you describe! It really flips the #*(&$( out the coin at random velocities:O
....did I mention that the sides of the box that the coin is flipped in also randomly change shape! It's a really precise flipper, you should look into it :)
 
Last edited:
Yes, Piggy it would be hard to get all 7 billion people to sit still and cooperate... I think that is a given!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom